What is the test for a jury to convict a plaintiff in a sexual assault case based solely on circumstantial evidence?

Unstated in plaintiff's briefs, but underlying his position, is the notion that something more than circumstantial evidence is required for a jury to convict him. This is not the law. "In a case built solely on circumstantial evidence, none of the individual pieces of evidence 'alone' is sufficient to convict. The sufficiency of the individual components, however, is not the test on appeal. Rather, in reviewing an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence, we need only determine whether a reasonable trier of fact, considering the circumstantial evidence cumulatively, could have found the defendant guilty . . . ." (People v. Daya (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 697, 708-709.)