What is the standard of review for a defendant convicted of special circumstance murder?

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citations.] We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.] [] The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence and to special circumstance allegations. [Citation.] "[I]f the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, the judgment may not be reversed simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding." [Citation.] We do not reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness's credibility. [Citation.]' " (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 210.)

"In the case of first degree felony murder [based on the commission of a robbery], 'every person, not the actual killer, who, with reckless indifference to human life and as a major participant' aids or abets the [robbery] may be convicted of special circumstance murder" and be eligible for a sentence of death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole. (People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 798 (Banks); see 190.2, subds. (a)(17)(A), (d).) This aider or abettor robbery-murder special circumstance contains an actus reus and a mens rea requirement. (Banks, at p. 798.) With respect to the required conduct, the defendant must have substantial personal involvement, "greater than the actions of an ordinary aider and abettor to an ordinary felony murder." (Id. at p. 802.) Relevant factors that may be weighed in determining whether an aider and abettor defendant is a major participant include (1) the role the defendant had in planning the criminal enterprise that led to the death(s); (2) the role the defendant had in supplying or using lethal weapons; (3) the defendant's awareness of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used or past experience or conduct of the other participants; (4) whether the defendant was present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent the actual murder and whether his or her actions or inactions played a role in the death; and (5) what the defendant did after lethal

Page 12