WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED BY HOLDING A JURY COULD RATIONALLY CONCLUDE THAT DEFENDANT PHARMACIST ABDICATED HIS DUTY UNDER §§ 1306.04(a) & 841(a)(1), DESPITE PHARMACIST'S ARGUMENT THAT THERE WERE 'LEGITIMATE MEDICAL PURPOSES' FOR THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE PRESCRIPTIONS HE FILLED BECAUSE TRIAL WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THEY HAD REAL INJURIES AND MEDICAL NEEDS REQUIRING MEDICATION BEFORE PHARMACIST FILLED THEIR PRESCRIPTIONS.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding a jury could rationally conclude that defendant pharmacist abdicated his duty under §§ 1306.04(a) & 841(a)(1), despite pharmacist's argument that there were 'legitimate medical purposes' for the controlled substance prescriptions he filled because trial witnesses testified that they had real injuries and medical needs requiring medication before pharmacist filled their prescriptions