People v. Todd CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues insufficient evidence supports his burglary conviction because the evidence does not demonstrate he held the required intent. We disagree. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is “ ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715, quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319.) We look to see whether the record contains substantial evidence, which is evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value. (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27.) “We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact reasonably could infer from the evidence. [Citation.] 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.” (Ibid.) We apply this standard “whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved.” (People v. Catlin (2001) 26…