How have the courts interpreted evidence in a motor vehicle accident case?

Defendant notes that the evidence shows that defendant did not brake as he drove onto the Ochandorena property. He claims this shows that defendant lost control of his car and the killing was accidental. But a contrary reasonable inference can be made that the lack of braking shows that defendant intentionally did not apply his brakes because he purposely drove onto the property in a rage, intending to run into anyone standing in his path. This court must presume "in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence." (People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1053.)