What is the test for insufficiency of evidence to overturn a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol?

Defendant argues that it would have been reasonable for the jury to have concluded that the car broke down in the left turn lane, or that Ngo, rather than defendant, moved it. Defendant further argues that his statement to Coopman indicated what he intended to do, not what he did. We may not reverse a conviction based on insufficiency of the evidence unless it is clear "that upon no hypotheses whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it." (People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755.) That standard cannot be met here.

The judgment is affirmed.