What is the test for circumstantial evidence in a murder trial?

"Direct evidence is that which is applied to the fact to be proved, immediately and directly, and without the aid of any intervening fact or process: as where, on a trial for murder, a witness positively testifies he saw the accused inflict the mortal wound, or administer the poison. Circumstantial evidence is that which is applied to the principal fact, indirectly, or through the medium of other facts, from which the principal fact is inferred. The characteristics of circumstantial evidence, as distinguished from that which is direct, are, first, the existence and presentation of one or more evidentiary facts; and, second, a process of inference, by which these facts are so connected with the fact sought, as to tend to produce a persuasion of its truth." (People v. Goldstein (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 146, 152-153.)

As noted above, we cannot reverse on the ground of insufficient evidence unless there is no reasonable hypothesis supporting the verdict. (See People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)

CALJIC No. 2.01 instructs the jury on the use of circumstantial evidence. It provides: