Is insufficient evidence sufficient to overturn a conviction for assault?

Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction due to a lack of "fingerprint or DNA evidence linking [defendant] to the gun" as well as "no direct, clear observation of the object [defendant] discarded." In reviewing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, "we review the whole record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or special circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The record must disclose substantial evidence to support the verdicti.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] . . . [] The same standard governs in cases where the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] [An appellate court] 'must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence.' " (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)