What is the standard of review for a claim of insufficient evidence in a criminal case?

To assess a claim of insufficient evidence in a criminal case, including whether substantial evidence supports a charge of possession with intent to sell, "'"the 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."' The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence, . . . An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence." (Citations omitted.) (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.)

"Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence." (Citation omitted.) (People v. Maury, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 403.)

"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. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)

"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." (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053-1054.) Where the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, a

Page 5