What is the test for overturning a conviction of sexual assault?

circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment." ' [Citations.]" [Citation.]' [Citations.]" The conviction shall stand 'unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507-508.)

With respect to defendant's subargument, we recently stated that " ' "Testimony may be rejected only when it is inherently improbable or incredible, i.e., ' "unbelievable per se," ' physically impossible or ' "wholly unacceptable to reasonable minds." ' " ' " (People v. Weatherton (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 676, 683, fn. 7.) And more than half a century ago this court stated: "It is hornbook law that the credibility of witnesses is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. Furthermore, to warrant the rejection of the testimony of a witness who has been believed by the trial court there must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions. [] An appellate court may set aside the verdict of a jury only when there is no substantial or credible evidence in the record to support it or where the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is so inherently improbable or false as to be incredible [citation]. Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of the judgment [citations]. It is equally well settled that a jury can give credence to a witness whose testimony is contradictory or inconsistent [citations] or even false in part [citation]." (People v. Fleming (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 163, 169-170.)