What is the test for sufficiency of evidence to support defendant's conviction?

In considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction, we examine "the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 514.) We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and

Page 5

presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact reasonably could deduce from the evidence. (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303.) The jury, not the appellate court, must be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; for us, "[t]he test is whether substantial evidence supports the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 432.) As set forth ante, there was substantial evidence supporting each of the charges against defendant.

The jury instructions were complete and legally correct.

The trial court did not err in admitting a redacted copy of the felony complaint and guilty plea form for defendant's prior felony conviction. This exhibit was relevant to count 9, possession of tear gas by a prohibited person. (People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 717 [admission of evidence at trial subject to review for abuse of discretion].)