What is the test for a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a sexual assault case?

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] . . . We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact reasonably could infer from the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. [Citation.] A reviewing court neither reweighs evidence nor revaluates a witness's credibility. [Citation.]" (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.)

"Cohabitation" within the meaning of section 273.5 has been defined by case law to describe unrelated adults "living together in a substantial relationshipone manifested, minimally, by permanence and sexual or amorous intimacy." (People v. Holifield (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 993, 1000 (Holifield).) Cohabitation does not require proof of "a full quasi-marital relationship." (Id. at p. 1002.) However, it requires "something more than a platonic, rooming-house arrangement." (Id. at p. 999.) Factors that determine cohabitation include, without limitation, sexual relations between the parties, sharing of income or expenses, joint use or ownership of the property, the parties' holding themselves out as marital partners, the continuity of the relationship, and the length of the relationship. (Id. at p. 1001.)