What is the standard of review in a possession case?

Finally, defendant maintains his possession convictions cannot stand because there are alternative inferences that may be drawn from the facts presented at trial pointing towards a lack of knowing possession. But that is not our standard of review. "[W]e review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence." (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) In a circumstantial evidence case, we must accept any logical inferences the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence, because "it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) Put simply, "[w]here the circumstances support the trier of fact's finding of guilt, an appellate court cannot reverse merely because it believes

Page 11

the evidence is reasonably reconciled with the defendant's innocence." (People v. Meza, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1747.)

"We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence." (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403.) "A reversal for insufficient evidence 'is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support"' the jury's verdict." (People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 357.) Here, substantial evidence supports a reasonable inference defendant knowingly possessed the contraband in the car, and was aware of its nature.