Should this Court grant review where Washington State's published Court of Appeals decision affirmed these multiple convictions despite ambiguous and contested evidence and no clear jury instruction, in a decision that conflicts with cases from this Court, the State's Supreme Court, and is contrary to the protections of the double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions?

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. It is well established that when a person is charged : with multiple counts of the same crime committed against the same person at the same time, the trial court must instruct , the jury to find separate and distinct conduct. The State ; charged me with identical, overlapping offenses and the trial court did not instruct the jury each verdict must rest on separate and distinct conduct. Should this Court grant review where Washington State's published Court of Appeals decision affirmed these multiple convictions despite ambiguous and contested evidence and no clear jury instruction, in a decision that conflicts with : cases from this Court, the State's Supreme Court, and is contrary to the protections of the double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions? _ i QUESTION PRESENTED 2. The right to cross-examine a complaining witness about matters relevant to credibility is a fundamental constitutional guarantee, essential to the accuracy of the fact-finding process. The trial court precluded me from _ questioning a complainant about material evidence relevant to credibility for truthfulness and bias in the circumstances of this case. The Washington State Court of Appeals refused to consider the merits of the claim by labeling the issue as a confrontation violation and deeming it waived because the defense did not cite the confrontation clause when objecting. Should this Court grant review of a published Court of Appeals decision where it creates a new threshold for preserving an error involving an objected-to restriction on the right to cross-examine a complaining witness, in conflict with established precedent and as an issue of substantial pubLic importance? oo ii . QUESTION PRESENTED 3. Allegations of uncharged wrongful acts are particularly prejudicial in a case involving charges of sexual offenses. The trial court admitted a host of highly prejudicial allegations. Several of which were admitted without finding that the misconduct occurred, identifying the purpose for which the evidence was sought to be admitted, or weighing their probative value against their plain prejudicial effect, and without any limiting instruction on how the jury should use this evidence. Does Washington State's published decision which m