What standard of review applies to a criminal defendant's claim that insufficient evidence supports a conviction?

In considering a criminal defendant's claim that insufficient evidence supports a conviction, our standard of review is well settled. We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution in order to determine whether it contains substantial evidencethat is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid valueupon which a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) We presume

Page 9

in support of the judgment every fact the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) Reversal is unwarranted merely because we believe the evidence might reasonably support a contrary conclusion. (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 514.)