What is the legal test for insufficient evidence in a prosecution for attempted murder?

To assess the evidence's sufficiency, we review the whole record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime true beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403.) The record must disclose substantial evidence to support the verdicti.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at p. 396.) In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 480.)

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. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)

The same standard governs in cases where the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 396.) We "must

Page 11

accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) "Although it is the jury's duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]" (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053-1054.) 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 reversal of the judgment. (Ibid.)

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. ( 187, subd. (a).) The crime is voluntary manslaughter if a defendant unlawfully kills another without malice aforethought. (People v. Blacksher (2011) 52 Cal.4th 769, 832.) Rodriguez argues there was insufficient evidence of malice because he acted upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. ( 192, subd. (a); People v. Carasi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1263, 1306.)

Malice in a prosecution for murder "may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart." ( 188.) However, in a prosecution for attempted murder the People must prove that the defendant acted with express malice, i.e., he had the specific intent to kill, and committed a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing. (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 739.) Accordingly, the intent to unlawfully kill another person and express malice are identical in a prosecution for attempted murder. (Ibid.)