Whether the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard was reasonably and rationally applied when the alleged victim of child sexual assault testified they were unsure the offense occurred, the child believes the offense was the product of dreams, and the child testified as such

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . . 1. Ia ik logical to conclude that a Aciet-offack has teasonalu and tationally applied the “heyond a reasonable doubt" standard as contemplated under Jackson v. Vitginia when: (GV the alleged viekin of a elild Serual assult | testifies hal he ot che is unsure the offense Occutted > (hy the child believes Ye offense in Question to he Ye product of Areamss and . . (CV he dnild teskifies as such? a. Te due process under Ye Fauckeenthy Amendment offended ulhen the State or Goverment poffers an alleged oubof tcouth slatement to hove heen made hy a elild sewal assull Vickie: tough a member of the ptosecutotial team shen ¢ {fav The Stalulory, fe quitements, Under code of criminal ptocedues, ate not shrelly adveard tos | (sy the Skate or Gonerment Cailes te offer any erat as bo Yne Nakaiky of the proffered shalemends and (\ does this eMeakively deny ne defendant a Tall and Pair oppottunity to ccossexamine the stalenentsof the prosecutorial team, when Yhe Pact Nader \s Q\Nen no atou Tha Yhe anid made any statement at all? 4. eer oe