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

"When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction, we ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] We view the whole record in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence. [Citations.] 'Before a judgment of conviction can be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence to support the trier of fact's verdict, it must clearly appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support it.' " (People v. Kwok (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1245 (Kwok).)

In reviewing for substantial evidence, appellate courts do not resolve credibility issues or evidentiary conflicts. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) It is the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses and the truth or falsity of facts upon which the jury's determination depends. (Ibid.)

Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. (People v. Lopez (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1028, 1069-1070, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216.) We must accept all logical inferences that the jury may have drawn from circumstantial

Page 41