What is the legal test for an alleged criminal to have committed an attempted murder?

rule applies to the review of circumstantial evidence. 'The court must consider the evidence and all logical inferences from that evidence in light of the legal definition of [attempt]. [Citation.] But it is the jury, not the appellate court, which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] Therefore, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. If the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, the reviewing court may not reverse the judgment merely because it believes that the circumstances might also support a contrary finding.' " (People v. Poindexter (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 572, 577.)

"Between preparation for the attempt and the attempt itself, there is a wide difference. The preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offense; the attempt is the direct movement toward the commission after the preparations are made." (People v. Murray (1859) 14 Cal. 159, quoted in People v. Superior Court (Decker) (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1, 8.) "As simple as it is to state the terminology for the law of attempt, it is not always clear in practice how to apply it. As other courts have observed, ' "[m]uch ink has been spilt in an attempt to arrive at a satisfactory standard for telling where preparation ends and attempt begins." [Citation.] . . . .' [] . . . [] Although a definitive test has proved elusive, we have long recognized that '[w]henever the design of a person to commit crime is clearly shown, slight acts in furtherance of the design will constitute an attempt.' " (People v. Superior Court (Decker), at p. 8.)