X. 4^ $ X. S-t-M-j-e $ Cot>r4 e^cej4 no4 nj v^UoX^ e'r 4\i€ 4r<c<l Coucf
errcA in cv<Jvn.44->n« He +es4>'w,otnj cl"' <1
vJifnesS Q.C. , ^kex-fc -He co^rV -fa > led+o q$s«$s
R.c.'s sM* of -Fear +o per «^< 4 VS +eS+i«v,onj
\),'n CC1V 4<U wwt R C.'s +eS+i«onj 's v e
Sole. w;U$< vJaS ineonS.S-knH «nA pe<-«s;.f+«d
i n<A<l m e.<xrs <5
Ve-lAcone< m<o
A ^6,^4 r<aV\-V Vo.^o \je 1 n4^° ^reJu<^'c
?€. 4\ 4cov\ er S'YM- j
Co r» fro 4<x4 Con

» VJk^Wer 4 ke_ S.C- S4A|e $<->pre^e Cour4 ereqj
4ij no4- vcx/cc^Xvu4c<^ <r 4^e, 4-^\ ck\ co'or4
er''«-c! (a <aJvn.Ut''j Kears-aj •i-es-b^ooj
improper Uj used Fo bofsHr He JedaHlnF
4n<f resulted (nciF-er' 0^ prejudua f" ' ^'i-Coner
vcotaAfna ?eA(-Vcovyer'^
r\'^V\4S ?° v> v\44 nvn^,'^4 V*v©n4

Whether the state supreme court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony that violated the petitioner's confrontation rights and resulted in prejudicial error