Was petitioner's post-conviction counsel ineffective for not arguing that petitioner's trial counsel failed object to a 'natural and probable consequences' jury instruction issued during his state aggravated murder trial, thereby allowing an unfair reduction of the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner had intended to aid and abet the murders of which he was accused?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Was petitioner’s post-conviction counsel ineffective for not arguing that petitioner’s trial counsel failed object to a “natural and probable consequences” jury instruction issued during his state aggravated murder trial, thereby allowing an unfair reduction of the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner had intended to aid and abet the murders of which he was accused?