I. Does the well-settled standard and scope of review governing sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims - a standard and scope of constitutional dimension - prohibit an appellate court from considering surveillance video proffered by the Commonwealth that was published to the fact-finder at trial, but never actually admitted into the evidentiary record, in determining whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the verdict?

II. If so, is the evidence of record insufficient as a matter of law to support Mr. Jones's conviction for third-degree murder where such evidence fails to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in either perfect or imperfect self-defense?

Does the well-settled standard and scope of review governing claims a standard and scope of constitutional dimension prohibit an appellate court from considering surveillance video proffered by the Commonwealth that was published to the fact-finder at trial, but never actually admitted into the evidentiary record, in determining whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the verdict?