What is the standard of review for a murder trial where the prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence?

most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. An appellate court must accept logical inferences the jury might have drawn from the evidence, even if the court would have concluded otherwise. (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1014-1015.)" 'The standard of review is the same when the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence.' " (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 253.)

A murder that is willful, deliberate, and premeditated is murder in the first degree. ( 189.)" ' "Deliberation" refers to careful weighing of considerations in forming a course of action; "premeditation" means thought over in advance. [Citations.] "The process of premeditation... does not require any extended period of time. 'The true test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly....' [Citations.]" ' " (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 419.)

" ' "An intentional killing is premeditated and deliberate if it occurred as the result of preexisting thought and reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse." [Citation.] A reviewing court normally considers three kinds of evidence to determine whether a finding of premeditation and deliberation is adequately supported preexisting motive, planning activity, and manner of killing but "[t]hese factors need not be present in any particular combination to find substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation." ' " (People v. Burney, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 235.) These three factors, however, are merely a framework for appellate review; they need not be present in some special combination or afforded special weight, nor are they exhaustive. (See, e.g.,

Page 15

People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1253; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331-332.)

As we will explain, the totality of the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict.