What is the current state of the law in the context of a specific intent crime?

On appeal, defendant states that: "It is not at all clear that appellant intended to steal the items from the store that were in her handbag. She may well have intended to take them over to the cashier and pay for them." Proposing an alternative conclusion on appeal is insufficient to warrant reversal of the judgment. (People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 358.)

Page 10

When the defendant is charged with a specific intent crime, " '[e]vidence of a defendant's state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as direct evidence to support a conviction.' " (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87.)