What is the test for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

"In determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellate court 'must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' [Citations.] The court does not, however, limit its review to the evidence favorable to the respondent.... '[O]ur task ... is twofold. First, we must resolve the issue in the light of the whole record--i.e., the entire picture of the defendant put before the jury--and may not limit our appraisal to isolated bits of evidence selected by the respondent. Second, we must judge whether the evidence of each of the essential elements ... is substantial; it is not enough for the respondent simply to point to "some" evidence supporting the finding, for "Not every surface conflict of evidence remains substantial in the light of other facts." ' " (People v. Johnson, supra, 26 Cal.3d at pp. 576-577, citations omitted, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.)

[700 P.2d 472]

Page 858