Whether the lower court misapplied Brecht v. Abrahamson standard by using an incorrect sufficiency of evidence test that denied fundamental justice in reviewing a constitutional trial error's impact on a jury verdict

QUESTIONS PRESENTED DID THE LOWERCOURT CLEARLY MISAPPLY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT IN A MANNER THAT DENIED FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE, WHEN IT USED A SUFFICIENCY Of THE . EVIDENCE TEST RATHER THAN THE TEST ENUNCIATED IN BRECHT . : V. ABRAHAMSON,507 US 619,622;113 S Ct 17103123 L Ed 2d 353 (1993) TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL ERROR HAD A SUBSTANTIAL AND INJURIOUS EFFECT OR INFLUENCE ON THE JURY'S VERDICT? Petitioner, Answers "Yes". 7 Respondent, Answers "No". ~ , WHETHER THE TEST IN BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON ENCROACHES ON THE STATE OF MICHIGAN'S REVERSIBLE ERROR DOCTRINE : REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF AN AIDING AND ABETTING INSTRUCTION, BECAUSE WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER THE ERRONEOUSLY ADMITTED EVIDENCE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL AND . INJURIOUS EFFECT OR INFLUENCE ON THE JURY'S VERDICT, THE ° BRECHT TEST DOES NOT CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAD ‘ THE ERRONEOUS EVIDENCE BEEN EXCLUDED THE TRIAL JUDGE WOULD HAVE NEVER GIVEN THE AIDING AND _ ABETTING . INSTRUCTION, AND THEREFORE A DIRECTED VERDICT WOULD HAVE ; . BEEN APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS THE STATE CONCEDED THEY COULD NOT PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT : PETITIONER FIRED THE FATAL SHOT, AND THE STATE RELIED , ; HEAVILY ON. THE ERRONEOUS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS THEORY . : THAT PETITIONER MUST HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED? cee Petitioner, Answers "Yes". Respondent, Answers "No". : . eo . ‘ . . f _ + . : | ; : | 7