What is the test for a claim that a conviction lacks sufficient evidence?

In evaluating a claim that a conviction lacks sufficient evidence, " we review the whole record to determine whether ... [there is] substantial evidence to support the verdict ... such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. " ( People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 314 P.3d 1.) We focus " on the whole record of evidence presented to the trier of fact, rather than on " isolated bits of evidence. " " ( People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1329, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259.) " " If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of facts findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment. " " (

[44 Cal.App.5th 1020]