to be highly questionable. The majority states without equivocation that, “[gjiven all of the evidence in this case, both circumstantial and direct, a reasonable jury could have found all the elements of the crime of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Sandefer’s conviction, and this contention is without merit.” Having made that bold statement, the majority then immediately proceeds to reverse and remand this case for a new trial on the grounds that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of Tracy Allen. Such an action would appear to be illogical and futile. Unlike the movie “Animal House,” the law does not require a futile gesture. See St. Dominic-Madison County Med. Ctr. v. Madison County Med. Ctr., 928 So.2d 822 (Miss.2006) (<HOLDING>). At worst, such a bold statement regarding the
holding that a chancellor reviewing the decision of a state agency properly reversed and rendered where once the legal standard to be applied properly had been established remanding the case would be futile given st dominics admission that it could not meet that legal standard holding that the nocorroboration rule is a legal standard for a court reviewing a conviction holding that although the board set forth the appropriate standard of review at the outset of its decision in this case whether the bia properly applied that standard was a question of law holding that appellate court could not review the sufficiency of the evidence  based on a particular legal standard because that standard was not submitted to the jury and no party objected to the charge on this ground or requested that the jury be charged using this standard holding that if a state case explicitly states that the state standard is more favorable to the defendant than the federal standard the federal claim is considered adjudicated below when the state standard is applied