What is the standard of review in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence?

The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 792.) If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's determination that the defendant is

Page 10

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a reviewing court's opinion that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with an alternative conclusion does not justify reversal of the judgment. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053-1054.)

Defendant relies on the doctrine of legal impossibility. "'"Legal impossibility" denotes conduct where the goal of the actor is not criminal, although he believes it to be. . . .' [Citation.]" (People v. Peppars (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 677, 687, fn. 5.)