What is the current state of the evidence for a motion for acquittal?

conviction, looking at the "state of the evidence as it stood" at the time of the motion. (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215.) Here, all the evidence presented at trial had already been introduced when Magallon made his motion for acquittal.

"'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.'" (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715.) "We determine 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (Ibid.) "In so doing, a reviewing court 'presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.'" (Ibid.) "A reversal for insufficient evidence 'is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support"' the jury's verdict." (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)

3. Analysis

Applying the factors of People v. Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d 15, and reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, sufficient evidence supports the conclusion that the murders were the result of preexisting reflection and weighing of considerations rather than a rash impulse. Magallon was not angry at the victim only on the day of the stabbing; he had nursed a grudge for months. Three months before the

Page 9