What circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a finding of intent to steal?

Although this evidence is again purely circumstantial, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Battles had the intent to steal. He did not knock on the door, as one might expect if he had been merely seeking shelter, nor is there any evidence that he tried to find shelter elsewhere on her property despite the fact that there were two cars and a motor home parked there. The overall circumstances were sufficient to permit the jurors, who were properly instructed regarding the reasonable doubt standard and the weighing of circumstantial evidence, to conclude that Battles had the intent to steal; under such circumstances, the fact that we might conclude the evidence could reasonably be reconciled with a finding of innocence would not justify a reversal of the judgment. (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 848-849.)