When will a court review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict?

When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict, we review all of the evidence most favorably to the verdict. We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict, but do not make credibility judgments or reweigh the evidence. The question we must decide is whether there is sufficient, substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the charge proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.)

" 'Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to connect a defendant with the crime and to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' " (People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d

Page 35

333, 347.) " ' "Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the jury, not the appellate court[,] which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" ' " (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11), and we may neither reweigh the evidence nor reevaluate a witness's credibility. (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1129.) Where the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the reviewing court's opinion that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.)