What is the test for a motion to overturn a conviction for the crime of child deprivation?

"'When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidencethat is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.] We determine 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.] In doing so, a reviewing court 'presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' [Citation.]" (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715.) We do not reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts therein, or reassess the credibility of witnesses. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) We reverse only if we conclude "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict." (Ibid.)

The crime of child custody deprivation is completed when a defendant "takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation." ( 278.5, subd. (a).) The words "malice" and "maliciously," which we discuss more extensively in Section II.A, infra, "import a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person, or an intent to do a wrongful act." ( 7, subd. (4);

Page 23

see also People v. Neidinger (2006) 40 Cal.4th 67, 79.)