What is the standard of review in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence?

The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 792.) "'"Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is

Page 7

susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], 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 reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment."' [Citations.]"' [Citation.]" (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.)