Whether evidence that is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of crimes, and inadequate when judged under the standard established in *In re Winship*, violates the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, such that no person shall be made to suffer the onus of a criminal conviction except upon sufficient proof?

Whether the standard to be applied by state courts when a defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to convict is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether the state presented evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt