What is the standard of review of a finding of guilty under section 368 of the California Criminal Code on a charge of elder abuse?

" 'The standard of review is well settled: On appeal, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] " '[I]f the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we must accord due deference to the trier of fact and not substitute our evaluation of a witness's credibility for that of the fact finder.' " [Citation.]' " (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1572-1573.)

"The standard of appellate review is the same when the evidence of guilt is primarily circumstantial. '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 be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding

Page 46

does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.' " ' [Citations.]" (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 668.)

Pursuant to section 368, "[a] defendant can be convicted of felony elder abuse when he or she 'knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder . . . and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder . . . to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.' [Citation.]" (People v. Racy (2007) 148 Cal. App.4th 1327, 13311332, italics omitted.)