1. WHETHER A DECISION AFFIRMING EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE ,
IN THIS CASE A TRANSCRIPT, CAN BE CORRECT IF
UNINFORMED AS TO THE TRANSCRIPT'S ACTUAL CONTENTS,
AND SO WITH NO BASIS ON WHICH TO ASSESS THE MERITS OF
DEFENDANT'S UNDISPUTED ASSERTION THAT THIS EVIDENCE
EXPOSES THE TESTIMONY OF THE STATE'S SOLE WITNESS AS
COMPLETE PERJURY

2. WHETHER A DECISION AFFIRMING EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE CAN
BE CORRECT WITHOUT ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE UNREFUTED
ASSERTION THAT IT WAS EXCLUDED ON PLAINLY ERRONEOUS
GROUNDS AND WAS IN FACT ADMISSIBLE

3. WHEN AN ISSUE WAS RAISED ON APPEAL, WHETHER RULE 3:22-
5 IS TO BE APPLIED TO AUTOMATICALLY BAR A POST
CONVICTION RELIEF CLAIM THAT IT HAD BEEN RAISED IN AN
INEFFECTIVE MANNER

4. IN A CASE WHERE A PCR PETITION PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST
TIME (POST-TRIAL) EVIDENCE THAT HE CLAIMS ESTABLISHES
THAT HIS CONVICTION WAS BASED ON PERJURY, WHETHER THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE CALLS FOR RELAXATION OF R. 3:22-5
IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE SAID CLAIM

Whether a decision affirming exclusion of evidence can be correct without addressing the unrefuted assertion that it was excluded on plainly erroneous grounds and was in fact admissible