What is the legal test for specific intent in a murder case?

The same standard applies in cases based primarily on circumstantial evidence. "'Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the jury, not the appellate court which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. [Citations.]' [Citation.] '"Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to connect a defendant with the crime and to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."'" (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 514.)

a. Specific Intent - Attempted Murder

"'Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing.' [Citations.] 'Intent to unlawfully kill and express malice are, in essence, "one and the same." [Citation.] Express malice requires a showing that the assailant either desires the victim's death or knows to a substantial certainty that the victim's death will occur. [Citation.]'" (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 890.)

Page 9