1. Reasonable jurists would determine that the jury's verdict as to Count One should be reversed as the evidence against Mr. Lane was constitutionally insufficient. No rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State could have found Mr. Lane guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Reasonable jurists would determine that the jury's verdict as to Count One should be reversed as the evidence against Mr. Laue failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as required by LSA-R.S. 15:438 and Louisiana and federal jurisprudence. Therefore, no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State conld have found Mr. Lane guilty beyond a reasonable donbt.

Sufficiency-of-the-evidence