What is the test for establishing a driving under the influence conviction?

We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence -- that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value -- from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Maciel (2013) 57 Cal.4th 482, 514-515.) We must decide whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, presuming the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence in support of the judgment. (Id. at p. 515.)

Page 7

"[F]or a defendant to be guilty of driving while under the influence of drugs . . . , ' "the . . . drug(s) must have so far affected the nervous system, the brain, or muscles [of the individual] as to impair to an appreciable degree the ability to operate a vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinarily prudent and cautious person in full possession of his faculties." ' " (People v. Canty (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1266, 1278.) "The detailed testimony of the observable physical and mental reactive state of the defendant . . . experienced in observing such details" is "sufficient to establish defendant's condition" for a driving under the influence conviction. (People v. Macknic (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 370, 374-375.)