thanks Deputy, sorry in my slow response. So the Trial Court can be vague in finding me guilty and the Appellate Court should make reasonable inferences of fact to support that.,. Makes sense for maintainig Status Quo. But my question really relates to the Appellate's review of the Trial Court's inferences. At trial, I felt the burden was on the state to prove elements of the offense but it turned out that the judge made one huge leap of faith in infering intent (one of the elements). I was hoping that Mr. Knowitall's comment ment that in Trial, I was the non-moving party and the Appellate Panel should have had a problem with the Trial Court making inferences against my favor.