What is the relevant case law for a defendant challenging the sufficiency of evidence to prove first degree murder?

As we have explained, "[w]hen a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence,' "[t]he court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.]' [Citations.] . . . 'Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. [Citation.]' [Citation.] We ' " 'presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' " [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at pp. 942-943.)

"The elements of a charge of murder are an unlawful killing with malice aforethought." (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 139.) Murder perpetuated by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing with express malice aforethought, or that is immediately preceded by lying in wait is murder in the first degree. ( 189.) Here, the jury was instructed with both these theories of first degree murder. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove first degree murder. His concern is with his liability for that offense.

A person may be liable for a criminal act as an aider and abettor. Section 31 defines "principals" in a crime to include persons who "aid and abet in its commission, or, . . . have advised and encouraged its commission." ( 31.) This court has interpreted section 31 to require that an aider and abettor must act with "knowledge of the direct perpetrator's unlawful intent and an intent to assist in achieving those unlawful ends, and . . . conduct by the aider and abettor that in fact

Page 50

assists the achievement of the crime. [Citation.]" (People v. Perez (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1219, 1225.)

Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence that he was a principal under section 31 because there was no direct evidence that he instigated the murder or encouraged or advised its commission. His contention fails. Preliminarily, the substantial evidence rule does not require that the evidence supporting defendant's conviction be direct evidence. For purposes of the rule, substantial evidence encompasses circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from such evidence. (People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 943.)