Whether the exclusion of evidence deemed necessary by Petitioner to present a complete defense and to combat the State's theory of guilt could be rationally justified

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the exclusion of evidence deemed necessary by Petitioner to present a complete defense and to combat the State’s theory of guilt could be rationally justified when the State appellate Court applied a blanket rule governing the admissibility of general character trait evidence, despite the fact that excluded evidence of the alleged victim’s conduct was directly related to the series of transactions at issue in the case and was not general character or character trait evidence. 2. In a case in which a criminal defendant asserts that his evidence was excluded without rational justification, are reviewing courts required to address the actual facts sought to be proven by the evidence, to determine whether the facts sought to be proven are material, and to determine whether the excluded evidence would have i any tendency to make those material facts more probable or less probable? 3. Under Jackson v. Virginia, is a State permitted to secure a first-degree murder conviction based on a wholly speculative conspiracy theory and to subsequently justify the conviction on appeal based on alternative theory of excessive force against an unknown intruder that was never placed before the jury or decided by the jury? ii