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

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] ' "Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the jury, not the appellate court[,] which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ' "If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment." ' " (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.)

"An intentional killing is premeditated and deliberate if it occurred as the result of preexisting thought and reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse. [Citations.] However, the requisite reflection need not span a specific or extended period of time. ' " 'Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly . . . .' " ' " (People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 543.) " ' " 'Premeditation and deliberation can occur in a brief interval. 'The test is not time, but reflection.' " ' " (People v. Mendoza (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1056, 1069.) "Appellate courts typically rely on three kinds of evidence in resolving the question raised here: motive, planning activity, and manner of killing. [Citations.] These factors need not be present in any particular combination to find substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation." (Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 543.)