Is there insufficient evidence to support a defendant's conviction of possession of narcotics for sale?

Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of possession of narcotics for sale. Relying upon a jury instruction, defendant contends that we must reverse his conviction if it appears that the offense has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, "'it is the jury, not the appellate court which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 514.)

As we stated previously, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, presuming in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence, and resolving neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. (People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at pp. 1175, 1180-1181.) We presume in support of the judgment the existence of

Page 16

every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence, even when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1053.)