What is the standard of review for a jury to convict a defendant of second degree burglary based solely on circumstantial evidence?

The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.) "An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence." (Ibid.) " '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.' " (People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 143 (Farnam).) "[I]f the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, the judgment may not be reversed simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding." (Ibid.) We do not reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness's credibility. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.)

Under section 459, "[e]very person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building . . . with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary." ( 459.) To convict defendant of second degree burglary, then, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he entered the laundry room with the intent to commit a theft or a felony. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 669 (Holt).)