What is the standard of review in a conspiracy case where the alleged conspirators rely mainly on circumstantial evidence?

"The standard of review is the same in cases in which the People rely mainly on circumstantial evidence." (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 792.) Given this

Page 14

court's limited role on appeal, appellant bears an enormous burden in claiming there was insufficient evidence to sustain the true finding. If the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we are bound to give due deference to the trier of fact and not retry the case ourselves. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.)

Section 182 provides for criminal punishment where "two or more persons conspire... [t]o commit any crime." To establish guilt of conspiracy, the prosecution must prove that the defendant and another person "had the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit an offense, as well as the specific intent to commit the elements of that offense, together with proof of the commission of an overt act" by one or more of the parties in furtherance of the conspiracy. (People v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403, 416.) However, to prove a conspiracy "it is not necessary to demonstrate that the parties met and actually agreed to undertake the unlawful act or that they had previously arranged a detailed plan. The evidence is sufficient if it supports an inference that the parties positively or tacitly came to a mutual understanding to commit a crime. Therefore, conspiracy may be proved through circumstantial evidence inferred from the conduct, relationship, interests, and activities of the alleged conspirators before and during the alleged conspiracy." (People v. Prevost (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1382, 1399.)