What is the standard of review in cases where the prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence?

We view the facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light favorable to the verdicts. (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303-304.) "The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] 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 [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."'" (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.)

Possession of recently stolen property may circumstantially support the inference that the possessor was the thief. (People v. McFarland (1962) 58 Cal.2d 748, 754 ["Possession of recently stolen property is so incriminating that to warrant conviction there need only be, in addition to possession, slight corroboration"].) The jury was so instructed.