Brown

Defendant Brown’s appeal is from a judgment founded upon a jury’s finding him guilty of grand theft.

One of his appellate arguments is that “the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

On such a contention we are bound by In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 808 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 425 , 500 P.2d 1 ], as follows: “It is the function of this court in reviewing a criminal conviction on appeal to determine whether the record contains any substantial evidence tending to support the finding of the trier of fact, and in considering this question we must view this evidence in the light most favorable to the finding. . . . The test is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. ” (Our italics.)

And the existence of substantial evidence will be determined by the following criteria. When a jury’s finding of fact is attacked on the ground that there is not any substantial evidence to sustain it, the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the finding of fact, and when two or…