whether-mr-marcel-was-denied-right-to-fair-trial

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Reasonable jurists would determine that Mr. Marcel was denied his right to a fair and impartial trial when the Court erred in allowing other crimes evidence. 2. Reasonable jurists would determine that the State failed to meet their strict burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in obtaining Marcel's conviction; 3. Reasonable jurists would determine that Mr. Marcd was denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Stricitand y, Washington. 4. Reasonable jurists would conclude that the State improperly amended the Bill of Information to reflect a charge that was not a lesser included offense of Simple Burglary of an Inhabited Dwelling; and counsel was ineffective for failing to object.