Is sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of attempted murder?

The proper test for determining whether there is sufficient evidence is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We must view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the People and presume every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence in support of the judgment. Attempted murder includes the element of the specific intent to kill coupled with the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing. (People v. Perez (2010) 50 Cal.4th 222, 229.)

"[I]ntent to kill or express malice, the mental state required to convict a defendant of attempted murder, may in many cases be inferred from the defendant's acts and the circumstances of the crime." (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 741.) There is rarely direct evidence of the defendant's intent, which must usually be derived from all the circumstances. The fact the shooter fired only once and then abandoned further efforts out of necessity or fear does not compel the conclusion the shooter initially lacked animus. A victim's escape from death only because of the shooter's poor marksmanship does not necessarily establish the shooter has a less culpable state of mind. (Ibid.)