What is the state attorney general's argument that there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant of possession of marijuana?

Next, defendant urges that there was no substantial evidence to support the guilty verdict, because, as characterized by defendant, the only evidence of possession was that defendant had access to the area where the marijuana was found. As noted by the Attorney General, this argument fails to take into account the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. As stated in People v. Anderson, 74 Cal.App.3d 214, 141 Cal.Rptr. 397, "The People may rely on circumstantial evidence to connect a defendant to the commission of the crime charged and to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed it. If the circumstances reasonably justify the findings of the trier of fact, an appellate court cannot reverse merely because the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding." (Id. at p. 224, 141 Cal.Rptr. at 401.)