What is the standard of review for a motion under section 1118.1?

favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence - evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value - such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the 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.] Review of the denial of a section 1118.1 motion made at the close of a prosecutor's case-in-chief focuses on the state of the evidence as it stood at that point. [Citation.]" (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215.)

" 'The purpose of a motion under section 1118.1 is to weed out as soon as possible those few instances in which the prosecution fails to make even a prima facie case.' [Citations.] The question 'is simply whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to present the matter to the jury for its determination.' [Citation.] The sufficiency of the evidence is tested at the point the motion is made. [Citations.] The question is one of law, subject to independent review. [Citation.]" (People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 200.)

We note that defendant's motion for acquittal was made, heard, and denied during an off-the-record sidebar hearing. Defendant never clarified whether his motion was based on the substantive charge of failing to appear and/or the on-bail enhancement. However, a defendant need not articulate the grounds for his motion for acquittal, and there is no requirement that the motion be made in a particular form or on specific points. (See, e.g., People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1213; People v. Smith (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1468.)

Page 18