With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". expressly advanced such an approach at his sentencing hearing when he argued that in order to support a departure predicated upon his intent to commit murder, the prosecution must establish that intent by clear and convincing evidence. The district court held that a mere preponderance was sufficient, see 706 F.Supp. at 345, but held alternatively that its findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence, see id. at 345 n. 28. On appeal, neither party raised the standard of proof issue in terms. However, Kikumura has asked us to review findings of fact, an exercise that necessarily entails determining what standard of proof the factfinder should have applied in the first instance. See, e.g., Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (<HOLDING>); cf. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

A: holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial
B: holding review of sufficiency of evidence of juvenile adjudication is same as reviewing substantial evidence to support a criminal conviction
C: holding that a habeas court reviewing the sufficiency of evidence underlying a criminal conviction must determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt  emphasis added
D: holding that when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a state criminal conviction the relevant question under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
C.