What is the standard of evidence used in a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence in a murder case?

"Our task in deciding a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is a well-established one. '[W]e review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 811.)

In doing so, "'the appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' [Citation.] This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved. '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.'"'" (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 139.)

2. Evidence of Premeditation

As explained in People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1080, "[a] verdict of deliberate and premeditated first degree murder requires more than a showing

Page 8