What is the standard of review in a criminal case based upon circumstantial evidence?

"Our role in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is a limited one. [Citation.] We examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence such that any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] Substantial evidence is ' "evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value." ' [Citation.] Although 'mere speculation cannot support a conviction' [citation], the trier of fact is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and we will ' " 'presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' " ' [Citations.] [] The standard of review remains the same in a case based upon circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] ' "[W]e must accord due deference to the trier of fact and not substitute our evaluation of a witness's credibility for that of the fact finder. [Citations.]" [Citation.]' [Citation.] We must decide whether the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, but 'our opinion that the circumstances also might reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding would not warrant reversal of the judgment.' " (People v. Bohana (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 360, 367-368.)