1. Whether the judiciary violated the Ex Post Facto Clause when it created a new evidentiary holding to excuse the impermissible use of propensity evidence to affirm a conviction.

2. Whether Petitioner's Due Process rights were violated when the evidence introduced at trial only amounted to speculation that a crime was committed and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt as is required by law.

3. Whether a criminal conviction can stand when the jury may have convicted the defendant on facts that do not constitute a crime.

4. Whether the Indiana neglect-of-a-dependent statute is unconstitutionally vague where even falling asleep can be deemed leaving a child unsupervised.

Whether the judiciary violated the Ex Post Facto Clause when it created a new evidentiary holding to excuse the impermissible use of propensity evidence to affirm a conviction