Whether the element of 'causing the death' is an essential element of malice murder in Georgia under O.C.G.A. 16-5-1(a), and whether the burden was on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the victim

Questions Presented ) Fo the element of “causing the death’ an exential element of | tralice whurder in Georgia 0.0.GA, Ib-5-1 @), the indictment which accused the Petitioner of causing the death and PyHesm New York H3AUS. 147 Schad v Arizona SOl U.S, 624? Did the burclen vest with -the State to prove beyond a. Ceasorable doubt that the aecusel. eaused the death of the victim ? Did the state inform the court Hat causation dig not apply in Hhis cage (Tr 1347 1348) : WDA the State fail to presentrenidence which proved beyond a (easonable doubt that Potitoner caused thedaath? 5) DMA phe Court inShuct the jury that the presence of the defadent at the scene of the crime ig an essential element ? (Tr |459) 6) did the State Sail 40 present evidence which proved beyand a Teasonable doust thatthe Patina yas plecentat Crime Scene? D) Diol Petitioner receive fair trial when he was convicted of offense. without a jury Deing required +0 Ling Orooe of essenhal element 6 caus ing the death of the Victim ? §) Did the Supreme Court of the United States Cules Accordingly . $ We held inthe Thompson Case that a conyiction based upon a record wholly devoid of any televant evidence of a ecucal clement ofthe otkenge charged 1S Condtitionally jaCirn’ Wackcon Virginia H43 US, ab 3/4 Thorapson v Louiguille 262U5.194 B05cr BCL Fel 2A 54 11400) q) did Yhe court tule in Smith y Smith thats Being ar element of te arime Yhe Skate mult prove beyond a reasonable doubt defendanty Presence at the Commission of oflense. ? 3A F Supp JEK CNY Ga \AI0) affirmed HOH FIA 57a (Streir Iha]) cortdeniek 104 US, 265 43 Sera4, iD) Did the State bear the burden of proving Phe actus fea for each elfense charged ? ) Did the State fail to prove actus fea beyorha reasonable doubt Lor each offense charged? Presence at the Crime Scene, Causing the death, Cemoving body parts Lrom the Seene-o€ death and concealing the death of another human being, 1D) Did the United States Supreme Court rule in Rergerd9s US. 78 82~ DALE 1314 ‘Allegations ofan indictnert amd proce of Fora) mast correspond ¢ . 13 Did the Shite fail 40 present prot at trial which cortespanded withthe allegations in the Neowtan Couty indictment 7 1H) Did the stake claion and inform the Jury that the offenses occwired , in Dekalh County rather than indicted county whete thal helAFTT 4.31) 15) Did Georgia Statule 0.C.64.8 {7-9-+ permit theaceused Petitioner to taise a Claim of Void Judgment in any Couct ever when ng previously Paige ? Did +] counsel Fail to provide effective attsance at ta! by Selling, +0 challenge lack of venue after State anounced. to the juty Yhet enue vas notin Newton County Georgia P (rri4an) D) Did tpval Counrcel Cail +0 prpvide effective assistance at trial py Lilia to obyeot Fp full covrbroom Closure? Owentv United States 5)7 Supe 2A 570 577 United States vGuph L944 F 3h 82 684 Ig) dtd the State inform the wry that ‘there was no endenee that Guggested that the aceused Petitioner dismembered the vieHin 's body or Killed her ot the Highway Hd location, In all lielinoad fhaxgh Leslyan Willians was Killed in DeKalb county “2 GT 113 nes 4-4) 10) Did the teva! Cone ingteuct the Suey: The law Provides that . 1g Critningl actions Shall be tried and indidedin the county in which the crime was committed’? CTT 1456) Tones v State HAGA 0), 20) Did Appeltoré counsel fail to Provide effective assistance Where he. Lnled ty present Viable-claim of errr at MotonGr New Tia! but Caiged claim at citectappeal with procedral bar Por Filing : 0 cotce aim at Mohon for New Tfial, ~ aiydid the federal cout ceviate Lrom i own Culny and he United States Supleme Conrts denial of cerbiora, where state Soiled — : to jeune proper instructions toguey and State Laled to Agprove | Pebinert defense presented at wal P (TT 11) Holloway ¥ Mefltay b3D. F Ik 665 Certdenied 5} US.1026 101 Ser 3019 23) Did the State Dppellate Court, the State habeas Courtand the Feleta( habeas court all fail 4a address the ocewed Petitioners claim of Ir