What is the standard of review in a murder case when the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence?

reasonable doubt.'" [Citations.] [] 'In determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellate court "must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence." [Citations.] The court does not, however, limit its review to the evidence favorable to the respondent. . . . "[O]ur task . . . is twofold. First, we must resolve the issue in the light of the whole recordi.e., the entire picture of the defendant put before the juryand may not limit our appraisal to isolated bits of evidence selected by the respondent. Second, we must judge whether the evidence of each of the essential elements . . . is substantial; it is not enough for the respondent simply to point to 'some' evidence supporting the finding, for 'Not every surface conflict of evidence remains substantial in the light of other facts.'"' [Citation.] [] Finally, although reasonable inferences must be drawn in support of the judgment, this court may not 'go beyond inference and into the realm of speculation in order to find support for a judgment. A finding of first degree murder which is merely the product of conjecture and surmise may not be affirmed.' [Citations.]" (People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 694-695, overruled on other grounds in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181, fn. 2.) "The standard of review is the same when the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.]" (People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 104.)