What is the test for determining whether a defendant committed the charged crime?

the judgment to determine whether there is substantial direct or circumstantial evidence the defendant committed the charged crime. [Citations.] The test is not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether substantial evidence, of credible and solid value, supports the jury's conclusions. [Citations.]" (People v. Quintero (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1161-1162.)

As to the element of causation, "a 'cause of the death of [the decedent] is an act or omission that sets in motion a chain of events that produces as a direct, natural and probable consequence of the act or omission the death of [the decedent] and without which the death would not occur.' [Citation.]" (People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 Cal.4th 860, 866.)⁴

In looking at the present record there is no direct evidence that the unsafe load caused the accident. We must therefore determine whether there is circumstantial evidence of a substantial nature, from which a trier of fact can rationally infer that the unsecured load was a cause of the present accident. In so doing, we must differentiate between a finding based on an "inference" (see Evid. Code, 600, subd. (b)), and a finding which is speculative or conjecture (People v. Massie (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 365, 374 ["If . . . the trier of fact's conclusion is mere guesswork, the appellate court will

Page 14

consider it to be speculation and conjecture that is insufficient to support the judgment."].)