What is the test for overturning a conviction for insufficient evidence?

"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.]" (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.) In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we "presume in support of

Page 6

the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.]" (People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 277.) "[I]t is the jury, not the appellate court, which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] Therefore, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. If the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, the reviewing court may not reverse the judgment merely because it believes that the circumstances might also support a contrary finding. [Citations.]" (People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1139.)

We will not reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence "unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].' [Citation.]" (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)

B. Intent to Kill