What is the applicable standard of review for a challenge to a conviction where the evidence of guilt is largely circumstantial?

We find this argument also lacking in merit. The applicable standard of review is well established. "When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidencethat is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuefrom which 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 of fact reasonably could infer from the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding." (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.)

This standard of appellate review applies "[e]ven where, as here, the evidence of guilt is largely circumstantial . . . ." (People v. Zaragoza (2016) 1 Cal.5th 21, 44.) Thus, while "[i]t is the duty of the jury to acquit the defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence. [Citation.] [T]he relevant inquiry on appeal is whether, in light of all the evidence, 'any reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (Ibid.)