What is the standard for a jury to convict a defendant of assault based solely on circumstantial evidence?

As defendant acknowledges, intent must usually be inferred from the circumstances. As respondent notes, "[e]vidence of a defendant's state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial . . . . [Citations.]" (People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208.) We must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) "The same standard applies when the conviction rests primarily on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)