Whether a state court's decision that a state statute prevents the state courts from conducting analysis pursuant to United States Supreme Court precedent for retroactive application of newer amended statutes, or of principles of law created through new or amended statutes, conflicts with the United States Supreme Court

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Dees « state court's decision that.a.state statute prevents the state courts from. conducdin pcmalysis puesua atte United state: s-Supreme.courk precedent for xetro active. applica: tion of newer omended statutes,cr of pe inciples.of law.cx cated Hheough new ox. amended —_ stotutes,confli ck the United States Supremecourt,oxis this . of federal law. that has not been, but should be, seHled by this Comet 2. 2. Does a state. courts decision te not apply united States supreme. court analysis for retreactive application +o s.chollenged state statutory ammendment.con) Vick with relevant deci~ $ ions of the United states Supreme.court, ov is this.an important guestionof federal {aw that has nok been, but shoul be, Sete by this Courkt 0 oo ee 3, Does the Avizona state courts lailuce 4o.give veces active elect te 2618. Avia. .Sess.Lases y ch.266,$84-2,0nd the statutory. amendments. enacted thereby. which effectiney changed i . Ane Avizons Revised stabutes [vemallewing a scheme. in.tuhich alae. of's exual interest was. an."affiemactive defense” tobe. proven by the, defenthurt ngainsto.charge.} sexual abuse.cr. . . child molestation (Hus reducin ig the state's burden. of peeef) jto-ene.insvhicl “lack of. w . sexual inkaxost” no langer. iS. defense but. an dlement which.the state haste prove. beyen ad. ao veasotable doubt = conflict with velevomt Qecisiens of the United states Supreme Court, ow. , 4 His on important question of federal lew tnot Ines net-been,bissh ould be,settled. by dis. = 4, Doss Hee Arizona shate courts’ failure do. deem unconstitutional and void ab initio the statutory scheme which lowed. y rom the .enaccmert of 49.93. Aviz. Sess.Laws, ch.436,84,and_. wequired a defendant te prove tne “affinmative delense’ of 0. "lackof. sexual interest. against 1 4 choege.of_sexual abuse or child molestation sx athexwise relieved the stoke Prem having 4s. qrovethe-clement of sexual interest heyonda reasonable donbt,.conflict withxslevant clecis= ons of the United states Supreme Court, or is federal Jaw that. has notbeen, but should be, settled by Haris Comet ene ne ne 5. Doas the. state courts denial of jury insheuctions in.cceardanee wits Ane. Jow-ine fect. af the ime of the trial sonflict with relevant decisions of the United states... Supreme Courtor is this.an important question.of_ Pedeval law. ta has.ned-been, hick should. be, settled by this Cous$2_— cones ene atten mene antennae dmea