scar from that wound matched the shape of the stain outside Edwards’s apartment. We conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Saleh guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the evidence presented at trial, including in particular the foregoing. II Saleh next argues that the state trial court’s admission of the testimony from Sahar and Willis as to the extent of the injuries Saleh inflicted upon his son-in-law on the night of the attack was erroneous in that it permitted irrelevant and prejudicial testimony aimed at establishing a “propensity” to violence to infect the trial. “[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state court determinations on state-law questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Further, “the Supreme Court has never
holding that the rules of evidence do not apply when a court is deciding upon preliminary questions dealing with the admissibility of evidence under rule 104 except for questions of privilege holding that statelaw admissibility questions raise no federal habeas issues holding that federal evidentiary rules control on questions of admissibility of expert medical witness testimony even in diversity cases recognizing the statelaw privilege because there was no federal claim to which the records sought would be relevant recognizing that after iirira habeas review remains available  to raise substantial constitutional questions