Are the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where in a case tried and presented under the transferred intent theory the jury is not instructed on the State's burden of proof regarding the requisite facts against alleged intended victim but is directed and guided to decide immaterial issues, i.e., the accused's alleged specific intent and malice against the bystanders instead, where the jury is provided an evidentiary presumption that has no constitutional underpinnings in the case, where the accused's convictions is upheld upon contradictory theories, i.e., a legally permissible and impermissible theory?

question presented is: . a Are the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where in a case tried and presented under the transferred intent theory the jury is not instructed on the State's burden of proof regarding the requisite facts against alleged intended victim but is directed and guided to decide immaterial issues, . i.e., the accused's alleged specific intent and malice against the ; bystanders instead, where the jury is provided an evidentiary presumption. that has no constitutional underpinnings in the case, where the accused's , convictions is upheld upon contradictory theories, i.e., a legally permissible and impermissible theory? 2. In Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000), this Court left unanswered the meaning of "constitutional," that have led to differing : : interpretations among the circuits. The circuits remain split on this issue. The question presented is: : ; Does the substituted word "constitutional" requires a more stringent standard than the former certificate for probable cause? Does petitioner's . claims: the various jury instructions challenges, the evidence sufficiency. challenge, the charging documents challenge merits a COA? oo. . -a