What is the standard of review in a case where the prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence?

"The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence." (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.) It is the jury, not the appellate court, that must be convinced of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Ibid.) 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 does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. (Ibid.)

We "presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence." (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) "A reversal for insufficient evidence 'is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis ... is there sufficient substantial evidence to support"' the jury's verdict." (Ibid.)

B. Applicable Law

Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a) is "'"intended to protect a child from an abusive situation in which the probability of serious injury is great."'" (People v. Valdez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 778, 784 (Valdez).) It provides in relevant part: "Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, ... having the care or custody of any child, ... willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years." (Pen. Code, 273a, subd. (a).) A violation of section 273a, subdivision (a) "'"can occur in a wide variety of situations: the definition broadly includes both active and passive conduct, i.e., child abuse by direct assault and child endangering by extreme neglect." [Citation.]'" (Valdez, supra, at p. 784.)

Page 7