What is the test for proving that a defendant has knowledge of the crime of receiving stolen property?

"When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the verdict, drawing all inferences that reasonably support it, and determine whether it contains substantial evidence that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a trier of fact could rationally find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] In making this determination, we do not reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, draw inferences contrary to the verdict, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. [Citation.] Moreover, because it is the jury, not the reviewing court, that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we are bound to sustain a conviction that is supported by only circumstantial evidence, even if that evidence is also reasonably susceptible of an interpretation that suggests innocence. [Citation.]" (People v. Little (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 766, 771; see also People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.)

"Proof of the crime of receiving stolen property requires establishing that the property in question was stolen, that the defendant was in possession of it, and that the defendant knew the property to be stolen. [Citations.]" (People v. Anderson (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 414, 420.) Only the knowledge requirement is at issue here.