What is the standard of review in a criminal case where the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence?

"'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 could reasonably 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.' [Citation.]" (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215.) "Any person who . . . willfully causes or permits [a] child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor." ( 273a, subd. (b); CALCRIM No. 823.)

Page 16