What is the standard of review in a murder case where the evidence is primarily circumstantial?

This standard of review is unchanged where, as here, the People rely primarily on circumstantial evidence to prove premeditation and deliberation. (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1124 (Perez).) So long as a rational trier of fact could conclude the defendant premeditated and deliberated beyond a reasonable doubt, our state and federal Constitutional safeguards are satisfied. (Ibid.) " 'Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.' [Citations.]" (Ibid.)

B. Applicable Law