Whether the evidence of robbery was legally sufficient when the only evidence of threatened use of force was speculation about sunglasses that may have been taken from the business's lost and found

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Would reasonable jurists debate whether the evidence of robbery was legally sufficient when the only evidence that Mr. Niehouse’s threatened use of force while trying to exit the business where he was trespassing was to retain stolen property was speculation sunglasses he appeared to carry might have been taken from the business’s lost and found?