Whether the lower court erred in its rulings on the admissibility of evidence and jury instructions, resulting in prejudicial impact on the defendant's right to a fair trial and conviction for robbery-murder

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 3M 5 “ : Sa: c 4 , 5 Pe tudicral ond Pecandge s Reverse! of The Specia| _ 6 || Circeamstonce FLA biog 8 1O There 16 Lasubeicient Evidence to Support Rubbery ¢heuieye.? 9 . U1!) Code Section 110% De BA prejudicial Tapuct on the Sry 's . 21) Con sidered e Avobllant's Zeatlt Of Murder) Robbe | B Hine Robber —Murder Special ct od 22 | aS | A. “the Prorcrime (SAS Auk ex Senne Ul oafPense wmoidWas 16 _Znddeissible Rurccucapte Bvidence Code section 0K? 19 “Uler Evidence code Section 352. 2 re 20 . 21 Cy. “The AdMiSSion afte Prium Actk [2 vide nce Regudre's . 22 Revers, | of Appellant's convichens 2 234) ; 7 ? The Prosecimticn Misted the funy About the. Laws ? 261 Was the bower court ta E ith the Z L Rules ood 27 | Conch 7 7 . 28 I G) Wa Ande. cs oa Die FOU se. Defend 7 en fialbsen ) : 2 Rulting has aggan Defendant ta Hare cose. ? Sy 4 @ Wo hye. De Fender onfe reabliible. withthe Evdden thas 5 li oy etal or ads jue: ? ; 6 7 a) BS tie. De Fen dan Gn te. Orht Stated ol NA wien ne wuyen He -Sdetewert/ | — 8 con Reser to tHe Police. and bts Ctrl Priend 7 a u 12 13 tte) the Defe we Xo ogtaal Th Canes Jae Se wénal Chefrze 141) ccapacasie Hager 2 } . is|i 16 : . 417 18 ; 19 20 21 || , 22 23 24 25 26 , 28° 5.