What is the standard of review in a conspiracy case?

"'In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not determine the facts ourselves. Rather, we "examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid valuesuch 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 reasonably could deduce from the evidence. [Citation.] [] The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence . . . . [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.'" (People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 200.)

"'A conviction of conspiracy requires proof that the defendant and another person had the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit an offense, as well as the specific intent to commit the elements of that offense, together with proof of the commission of an overt act "by one or more of the parties to such agreement" in furtherance of the conspiracy.'" (People v. Johnson (2013) 57 Cal.4th 250, 257.)