What is the test for sufficiency of evidence in a case where the evidence supports the theory of lying-in-wait for first degree murder?

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the reviewing court "'determines "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citations.] We examine the record to determine "whether it shows evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.] Further, "the appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence."' [Citations.]" (People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 22.)

In a case where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged as to the requirements of lying-in-wait for first degree murder and those of the lying-in-wait special circumstance, "'[w]e focus on the special circumstance because it contains the more stringent requirements. [Citation.] If, as we find, the evidence supports the special circumstance, it necessarily supports the theory of first degree murder. [] The lying-in-wait special circumstance requires "an intentional murder, committed under circumstances which include (1) a concealment of purpose, (2) a substantial period of watching and waiting for an opportune time to act, and (3) immediately thereafter, a surprise attack on an unsuspecting victim from a position of advantage . . . ." [Citations.]'" (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 500.)