What is the standard of review for a defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for a jury finding?

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for a jury finding, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment of the trial court. We evaluate whether substantial evidence, defined as reasonable and credible evidence of solid value, has been disclosed, permitting the trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 323324, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 363, 441 P.3d 359.) " The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. " ( Id . at p. 324, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 363, 441 P.3d 359.)

We review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions and enhancements using the same standard, presuming " every fact in support of the judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. " ( People v. Rivera , supra , 7 Cal.5th at p. 331, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 363, 441 P.3d 359.) If the finder of fact's determination is supported, whether the prosecutor relied upon direct or circumstantial evidence, we have held that reversal is not warranted, even where " the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. " ( Ibid . )