What is the standard of review for a defendant in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence?

Defendant next contends that none of his convictions is supported by substantial evidence. "In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court's task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.) "The appellate court presumes in support of the

Page 24

judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence." (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) "The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence." (Rodriguez, at p. 11.) Applying this standard, defendant's argument fails to persuade us reversal is warranted on any of his six convictions.