What is the test for overturning a conviction for voluntary manslaughter?

"In addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, the reviewing court must examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citations.] The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] Although it is the jury's duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] '"If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. [Citation.]"' [Citation.]" (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.)

Page 8

In the instant case, Marin was charged with murder, and the court instructed the jury on both murder and the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought." ( 187, subd. (a).) Malice may be express or implied. It is express where "there is manifested a deliberate intention" to kill; it is implied where "no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart." ( 188.) In contrast, voluntary manslaughter is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being without malice . . . upon sudden quarrel or heat of passion." ( 192, subd. (a).) "'A murder . . . may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the victim engaged in provocative conduct that would cause an ordinary person with an average disposition to act rashly or without due deliberation and reflection.' [Citation.]" (People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 759; see also People v. Danielly (1949) 33 Cal.2d 362, 385 ["The decisive factor in determining which crime has been committed is the defendant's state of mind"].)