How have courts considered reasonable inference in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction?

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must presume every inference in support of the judgment that the finder of fact could reasonably have made. (People v. D'Arcy, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 293.) The reasonable inferences here establish that appellant drove the shooter closer to the intended victims. Appellant drove slowly or not at all while the shooter fired. Appellant gave the shooter time to pause once or twice between shots. Appellant did not speed away until the shooter had fired at least 10 rounds. By placing the passenger in a position to fire on the victims, the reasonable inferences demonstrate appellant's intent to aid in this shooting. Those inferences are further bolstered because appellant did not drive away until his passenger had finished firing at least 10 rounds.⁹

Page 15