What is the legal test for overturning a conviction for assault where the evidence is based primarily on circumstantial evidence?

"In addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, the reviewing court must examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determined whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value--such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citations.] The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] Although it is the jury's duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] '"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. [Citation.]"' [Citation.]" (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053-1054.)

Absence of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion is a fact the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt when murder and voluntary manslaughter are under joint consideration. (People v. Najera (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 212, 223.) Appellant contends in this case provocation was sufficient to cause an emotional reaction by a person of ordinary disposition. He argues:

Page 21