What is the test for a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence in a murder case?

"When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask '"whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt."' [Citations.] Because the sufficiency of the evidence is ultimately a legal question, we must examine the record independently for '"substantial evidencethat is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value"' that would support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] These same standards apply to challenges to the evidence underlying a true finding on a special circumstance. [Citation.]" (People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 804 (Banks).)

In order to find the robbery and/or burglary special circumstance to be true, the jury was required to find "[t]he murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in, or was an accomplice in, the commission of, attempted commission of, or the immediate flight after committing, or attempting to commit" robbery ( 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)) and/or burglary ( 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(G)). "[E]very person, not the actual killer, who, with reckless indifference to human life and as a major participant, aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, solicits, requests, or assists in the commission of [an enumerated] felony [including robbery and burglary,] which results in the death of some person or persons, and who is found guilty of murder in the first degree therefor, shall be punished by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of

Page 11

parole . . . ." ( 190.2, subdivision (d); see People v. Bustos (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1747, 1753.)