What is the legal test for a reversal of a jury's verdict for insufficient evidence?

In assessing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, "we review the whole record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime or special circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) "The record must disclose substantial evidence to support the verdicti.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence.... A reversal for insufficient evidence 'is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support"' the jury's verdict. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

The same standard applies where the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence, and we accept any logical inferences the jury could have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. It is the jury, not the reviewing court, that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 357-358.)