What is the standard of review in cases in which the People 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. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507.) "Although

Page 49

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. [Citations.]" (Id. at pp. 507-508.) " '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. [Citations.]' " (Id. at p. 508.) Therefore, before we may set aside the judgment, it must be clear that " 'upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient evidence to support it.' " (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)