Whether the failure to limit the definitions, in the abstract portion of the jury charge, of 'Intentionally' and 'Knowingly' to the nature of the conduct, where the accused is being prosecuted for murder, and in the alternative, under the law of parties, constitutes a violation of due process under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.) Whether the failure to limit the definitions, in the abstract. portion of the jury charge, of "Intentionally" and "Knowingly" to the nature of the conduct, where the accused.is being prosecuted for murder, and in the alternative, under the law of parties, constitutes a violation of due process under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 2.) Whether it constituted legal insufficiency and a violation of due process under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when the court failed to:limit the definition, in the abstract portion of the jury charge, of "Intentionally" and "Knowingly" to the proper criminal mental state under the law of parties. 3.) Whether it constituted error to deny a motion for mistrial when the trial court allowed an undiscolsed DNA Expert witness to provide the jury with an opinion that was undisclosed, unreliable and unhelpful to the jury. 4.) Whether a video-taped confession should have been suppressed when the investigating officer used the two-step interrogation technique to extract incriminating evidence from the accused without complying with Miranda and Article 38.22 of the Texas ; Code of Criminal Pro. warning requirements in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. i