What is the test for substantial evidence in a criminal case?

When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, we "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.]" (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact

Page 7

the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (Ibid.) We may not reweigh the evidence and substitute our own judgment for that of the jury. (People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1139.) "Even when there is a significant amount of countervailing evidence, the testimony of a single witness that satisfies the [substantial evidence] standard is sufficient to uphold the finding." (People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052 (Barnwell).)"Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the... jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. [Citation.] We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence. [Citation.]" (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403.)