injury....” Commonwealth v. Alexander, 477 Pa. 190, 383 A.2d 887, 889-90 (1978). The evidence in this case was that Christina knocked the victim down with a punch in the face and then kicked him in the face while he was down. Because the victim’s only arguably “serious” injuries were to the trunk and legs, Christina himself—as opposed to his codefendants—may not actually have caused the “serious” injury. Nonetheless, considering the circumstances of the assault (three attackers against one victim who was soon lying on the ground), we cannot say that the evidence of Christina’s acts during the assault is insufficient to support a jury finding that he intended to inflict serious bodily injury on his victim. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (<HOLDING>). The Pennsylvania courts’ conclusion that
holding that evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements  beyond a reasonable doubt holding that a verdict must be sustained against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt holding that a petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus relief if it is found that upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt holding that in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence in habeas corpus petitions we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt