What is the role of the Court of Appeal on appeal against the finding that evidence of excessive drinking was improper in a motor vehicle accident case?

Shore contends his drinking was not the cause of the accident and evidence of his blood alcohol level should not have been admitted. On appeal, an appellate court's role is to "ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value," and, "if the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we must accord due deference to the trier of fact and not substitute our evaluation of a witness's credibility for that of the fact finder. [Citations.]" (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314.) In applying the substantial evidence standard of review, the appellate court adopts all reasonable inferences and presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that a jury reasonably could have deduced from the evidence. The trier of fact makes credibility determinations and resolves factual disputes. An appellate court will not substitute its evaluation of a witness's credibility for that of the fact finder." (People v. Vazquez (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 347, 352.)