Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees were satisfied for a defendant accused of a crime involving intent, where exculpatory eyewitness testimony was suppressed and inculpatory lay opinion testimony was admitted

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED G) Age the Fourteenth Amendment, Constituhonal quaantees 7 ok “Due Feoces oF Laws" and “equal protection of the laws” duly satiofed for a Defendant accuved oF a crime Mnvolving “intent when @ oe (B) the exculpatory testimeny ok an eye-wirne% reqarding | absence of intent 14 suppresed , and (b) din paraging 4 inculpa tory lay opinien destimeny aloout the Velendonts alleged intent io admitted, white © exonerating Sict—land eye-witness decAi mene from Bn aoverviry Party of Hw incident i, suppreced? @) Was thre CowctoF Appeals’ decion contrary tothe rley of evidence estaldished by numerns decisions . of the Comrt of Agpeale and the Supreme Court? (A) the trial Court aloused it diseretionand erred when it overled she olojection to Brian Lovedos Vay opinion teotimeny, (b) the decision of the Court of Appeals erred , \v) affinning the tWial courtand% convoy to Evidence Rules 662,761,704 and at least Hive precedented] caces ced wihints petition .