What is the standard of review for insufficiency of evidence in cases where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence?

"In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court's task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence that is, 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. [Citation.] The federal standard of review is to the same effect: Under principles of federal due process, review for sufficiency of evidence entails not the determination whether the reviewing court itself believes the evidence at trial establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but, instead, whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] '"Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the jury, not the appellate court[,] which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. '"If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding

Page 6

does not warrant a reversal of the judgment."' [Citations.]"' [Citation.]" (People v. Rodriguez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 11.)

Appellant focuses on the fact the police did not find a gun. Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to prove an assault with a firearm. (See People v. Rodriguez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 11-14.) Evidence of a defendant's conduct may be used to prove that a gun was loaded or operable. (See People v. Rodriguez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 13.) "'The acts and language used by an accused person while carrying a gun may constitute an admission by conduct that the gun is loaded.' [Citations.]" (Ibid.)