Did the superior court violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and the dictates of this court in 'Patterson v. New York', 432 U.S. 197 (1977), by concluding the commonwealth maintained a rebuttable mandatory presumption of petitioner's guilt on the nonauthorization elements of the statutes, upon which petitioner was found guilty, that the commonwealth did not have to officially prove at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, until petitioner came forth with sufficient evidence to prove he was authorized under the statute to manufacture, possess with intent to deliver, or possess a controlled substance?

No question identified. : I. QUESTIDN(S) 8 OS : DID THE SUPERIOR COURT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOUR. TEENTH AMENDMENT (in its fullest context) AND THE DICTATES OF THIS COURT IN "PATTERSON V. NEW YORK", 432 U.S. 197 (1977), BY CONCLUD: ING THE COMMONWEALTH MAINTAINED A REBUTTABLE MANDATORY PRESUMPTION OF PETITIONER'S GUILT ON THE NONAUTHORIZATION ELEMENTS OF THE STAT. UTES, 35 AND (32), UPON WHICH PETITIONER =~ WAS FOUND GUILTY, THAT THE COMMONWEALTH DID NOT HAVE TO OFFICIALLY : PROVE AT TRIAL BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, UNTIL PETITIONER CAME ; FORTH WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE HE WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE STATUTE TO MANUFACTURE, POSSESS WITH INTENT TO DELIVER, OR POSSESS A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE? ;