When determining whether there is substantial evidence to support a conviction, we view the record in the light most favorable to the People, resolving all conflicts in the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences to support the conviction. (People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 408; People v. Small (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 319, 325 [“The substantial evidence rule is generous to the respondent on appeal . . .”].) “ ‘We may conclude that there is no substantial evidence in support of conviction only if it can be said that on the evidence presented no reasonable fact finder could find the defendant guilty on the theory presented.' ”
"The substantial evidence rule is generous to the respondent on appeal and permits a trier of fact to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence." (People v. Small (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 319, 325, 252 Cal.Rptr. 41.)The evidence supports the following inferences: Defendant desired to take Ronna's life and, in the process, benefit financially from the large amount of insurance bought on her life.
We disagree, finding substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict. "When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence-that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27), resolving all conflicts in the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences to support the conviction (People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 408; People v. Small (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 319, 325 ["The substantial evidence rule is generous to the respondent on appeal"]). We do not reweigh the evidence or reevaluate a witness's credibility (Lindberg, at p. 27), and" 'may conclude that there is no substantial evidence in support of conviction only if it can be said that on the evidence presented no reasonable fact finder could find the defendant guilty on the theory presented'" (Campbell, at p. 408).
"When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence-that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27), resolving all conflicts in the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences to support the conviction. (People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 408; People v. Small (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 319, 325 ["The substantial evidence rule is generous to the respondent on appeal"].) We do not reweigh the evidence or reevaluate a witness's credibility (Lindberg, supra, at p. 27), and" 'may conclude that there is no substantial evidence in support of conviction only if it can be said that on the evidence presented no reasonable fact finder could find the defendant guilty on the theory presented.'" (Campbell, supra, at p. 408.)
When determining whether there is substantial evidence to support a conviction, we view the record in the light most favorable to the People, resolving all conflicts in the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences to support the conviction. (People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 408; People v. Small (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 319, 325 ["The substantial evidence rule is generous to the respondent on appeal . . ."].) " 'We may conclude that there is no substantial evidence in support of conviction only if it can be said that on the evidence presented no reasonable fact finder could find the defendant guilty on the theory presented.' "
(Ibid.; People v. Small (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 319, 324-325.) In so doing, we presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence.
When determining whether there is substantial evidence to support a conviction, we view the record in the light most favorable to the People, resolving all conflicts in the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the conviction. (People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 408; People v. Small (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 319, 325 ["The substantial evidence rule is generous to the respondent on appeal"].) " 'We may conclude that there is no substantial evidence in support of conviction only if it can be said that on the evidence presented no reasonable fact finder could find the defendant guilty on the theory presented.' "
To the extent Tenbrink was claiming the marijuana and apparatus belonged to a third party, Thomas, " '[t]he inference of dominion and control is easily made when the contraband is discovered in a place over which the defendant has general dominion and control: his residence ....' " (People v. Small (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 319, 326.) The evidence was sufficient to prove that Tenbrink had dominion and control over all the items necessary to produce hash oil by the butane extraction method; the items were in the bedroom of his residence.
When determining whether there is substantial evidence to support a conviction, we view the record in the light most favorable to the People, resolving all conflicts in the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the conviction. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206; People v. Campbell (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 402, 408; People v. Small (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 319, 325 ["The substantial evidence rule is generous to the respondent on appeal"].) " 'We may conclude that there is no substantial evidence in support of conviction only if it can be said that on the evidence presented no reasonable fact finder could find the defendant guilty on the theory presented.' "
(People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331; People v. Massie (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 365, 371.) Thus, "[t]he substantial evidence rule is generous to the respondent on appeal . . . ." (People v. Small (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 319, 325.) In this case, John Stevens, the store's owner, testified to the number and value of the stolen items on September 29. John had been in the grocery business for over 40 years.