What is the legal test for a finding of insufficient evidence in a drug case where the prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence?

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and do not reweigh the credibility of witnesses, or reassess evidentiary conflicts. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) The same legal standard applies when, as here, the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence.

"An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence." (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396, overruled on other grounds in Barnett v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 890, 901.)

Page 5

Where the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, a reviewing court's conclusion the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant the judgment's reversal. (People v. Rodrgiuez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.)

b. Possession

Defendant contends the prosecution failed to produce any direct evidence linking him to the discarded methamphetamine. Defendant believes the absence of direct evidence he discarded the methamphetamine means the judgment is based on insufficient evidence. But the absence of direct evidence connecting defendant to the methamphetamine is not dispositive. Convictions for transportation and possession for sale of controlled substances may be based on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Meza (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1741, 1745-1746 (Meza).)