Whether the judiciary violated the Ex Post Facto Clause when it created a new evidentiary holding to excuse the impermissible use of propensity evidence to affirm a conviction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the judiciary violated the Ex Post Facto Clause when it created a new evidentiary holding to excuse the impermissible use of propensity evidence to affirm a conviction. 2. Whether Petitioner’s Due Process rights were violated when the evidence introduced at trial only amounted to speculation that a crime was committed and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt as is required by law. 3. Whether a criminal conviction can stand when the jury may have convicted the defendant on facts that do not constitute a crime. 4. Whether the Indiana statute is unconstitutionally vague where even falling asleep can be deemed leaving a child unsupervised. ii LIST OF DIRECTLY