What is the standard of review for a sexual assault claim involving both direct and circumstantial evidence?

This standard of review applies to claims involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. We must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] [Citation.] 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. [Citation.] [Citation.] Where the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, a reviewing court's conclusion the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant the judgment's reversal. [Citation.]' [Citation.] (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87.)