What is the test for a finding of premeditation and deliberation in a murder trial?

We return to the issue on appeal which is whether "any rational trier of fact could have been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant premeditated the murder." (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1127.) Although defendant counters that his actions were not sufficient to show premeditation and deliberation, he does not defeat the sufficiency of the evidence merely by offering "competing inferences he wishes the jury had drawn." (People v. Casares, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 827; see People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60 ["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."].) In our view, that is what his argument on appeal amounts to; a series of competing inferences. For the reasons stated, the evidence as a whole was sufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation and deliberation.

Page 15