A more thorough explanation:

The Jackson standard is a principle in criminal law that applies to appeals where a defendant claims that there is insufficient evidence to support their conviction. The standard of review is to determine whether, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

For example, if a person is convicted of robbery, but claims that there was not enough evidence to prove that they committed the crime, the Jackson standard would be applied on appeal. The court would review the evidence presented at trial and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Jackson standard was established in the case of Jackson v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court of the United States held that the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence claims in criminal cases is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.