Whether the Virginia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals erred in refusing to set aside the petitioner's conviction and sentence, which violated his rights secured by the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Ine light of the decisions iv Jackeorvs Virginia US. 307 (1979), ond Tn, Re: liSinship, 3977S, 350(1976), did Virg rua Supreme Courtond Court of appeals Refusal te side aside his Conviction. and selénee violate rights secured by the proof beyond areasonable doubt? . a, lrhetler fal Couct érred wher Tallowed the ertronceePa. photegroph of the Victim's aporimert which. torlained Ya wictimls Ghildren, becouse tt was relevartand more preyadi— Cal thor probative ww value ts in ConPhetiott. tor ovorL Precedent “Beverly Comm! Sracev Comm ancl sther Site CrreuitS “Unitecl Sates" WashingtonP , includeol dnoolmissible Hearsoy and dalled for-specu: on is tr CoP with hear ovr precedent Reverty vs mmonuxeoHA 12.vA 4 iS1vA sii(iaai)? Serta) Soar Coenen, uy