What is the test for a jury to convict a hit and run driver based on circumstantial evidence?

Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on circumstantial evidence. The thrust of appellant's argument may be stated as follows: (a) criminal liability under section 20001 (hit and run driving) attached only if he knew that injury occurred (People v. Carter (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 239, 241, 52 Cal.Rptr. 207); (b) the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence in this case to prove the element of knowledge; (c) as a consequence, the trial court should have given CALJIC 2.01 by explaining to the jury that appellant could be convicted based upon circumstantial evidence if the facts and circumstances were not only entirely consistent with his guilt, but also irreconcilable with any other rational conclusion. ²