Is insufficient evidence sufficient to overturn a conviction of aiding and abetting premeditated murder?

Defendant maintains there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction of first degree murder under any of the prosecution's three theories: aiding and abetting premeditated murder, felony murder by aiding and abetting a kidnapping, and torture murder. We affirm the conviction if there is substantial evidence supporting any one of these theories. (See People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1128 [Cases "in which the jury has merely been 'left the option of relying upon a factually inadequate theory,' or also phrased slightly differently, cases in which there was an 'insufficiency of proof[,]' . . . do[] not require reversal if at least one valid theory remains." (Italics omitted.).]

"In determining whether the evidence was sufficient . . . to sustain a conviction . . . ' "we 'examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [] The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence and to special circumstance allegations. '[I]f the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, the judgment may not be reversed simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.' We do not reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness's credibility." ' " (People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1182-1183 (Hajek), overruled on another ground in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th

Page 10

1192, 1216.) Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences flowing from it. (People v. Vang (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 554, 563.)