What is the legal test for insufficiency of evidence in a case of conspiracy to commit murder?

When an insufficiency of the evidence claim is made, an appellate court "`examine[s] the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt[]'" and "presume[s] in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.]" (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1129.) This standard applies equally to a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. (Ibid.) A judgment will not be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence unless "`upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].' [Citation.]" (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)

Defendant challenges his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder (count 3) and aiding and abetting first degree murder. A conspiracy occurs when two or more persons agree to commit any crime. ( 182, subd. (1)(a).) "`A conviction of conspiracy requires proof that the defendant and another person had the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit an offense, as well as the specific intent to commit the elements of that offense, together with proof of the commission of an overt act "by one or more of the parties to such agreement" in furtherance of the conspiracy.' [Citations.]" (People v. Jurado (2006) 38 Cal.4th 72, 120.)

"`"`Each [conspirator] is responsible for everything done by his confederates, which follows incidentally in the execution of the common design as one of its probable and natural consequences . . . .'"' [Citations.] Thus, `[i]t is not necessary that a party to a conspiracy shall be present and personally participate with his co-conspirators in all or in any of the overt acts.' [Citation.]" (People v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403, 417.) "`Disagreement as to who the coconspirators were or who did an overt act, or exactly what that act was, does not invalidate a conspiracy conviction, as long as a unanimous jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspirator did commit some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.' [Citation.]" (People v. Jurado, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 120-121.) "[T]he valid finding of a single overt act is sufficient to support the conspiracy verdict. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 122.)

"[A] person who aids and abets the commission of a crime is a `principal' in the crime, and thus shares the guilt of the actual perpetrator. ( 31.)" (People v. Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 259.) "[A]n aider and abettor is a person who, `acting with (1) knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator[,] and (2) the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the offense, (3) by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates[] the commission of the crime.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)