Is there a substantial evidence issue in this case?

The prosecutor's arguments are relevant because defendant has raised a substantial evidence issue as well. We "cannot look to legal theories not before the jury in seeking to reconcile a jury verdict with the substantial evidence rule." (People v. Kunkin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 245, 251.) Thus, defendant's argument in this appeal can be understood as asserting (1) legally, there is no property right in a receipt policy or in controlling receipts, such that defendant could ever be guilty of burglary with the underlying offense being forgery; and (2) if there is such a property right, then there is a lack of substantial evidence in this case.

The property right issue is ultimately an academic question because the prosecutor had a second theorypecuniary injury. We do not delve into the issue of whether a business has a property right in controlling its receipts because it is unnecessary to resolving this casethe pecuniary injury theory is sufficient. (See People v. Travis (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1280 [academic questions are moot].)