What is the standard for a jury to determine whether there was intent to commit theft at the time of entry?

standard is the same under the state and federal due process clauses. [Citation.] 'We presume " 'in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' [Citation.] This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Gonzales and Soliz (2011) 52 Cal.4th 254, 294 (Gonzales and Soliz).)

The existence of a defendant's intent to commit theft at the time of an entry or attempted entry is " ' "rarely susceptible of direct proof and must usually be inferred from all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 669-670.) The "defendant's conduct during and after his [or her] entry" is a relevant circumstance. (Id. at p. 670.) For instance, the jury may conclude that an entry or attempted entry was done with the intent to commit theft based on "flight after being hailed by an occupant of the building [citation], the fact that the building was entered through a window [citation] or through a doorway which previously had been locked [citations] without reasonable explanation of the entry." (People v. Jordan (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 782, 786-787.)