1.) Whether the failure to limit the definitions, in the abstract
portion of the jury charge, of "Intentionally" and "Knowingly"
to the nature of the conduct, where the accused.is being
prosecuted for murder, and in the alternative, under the law
of parties, constitutes a violation of due process under the
14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

2.) Whether it constituted legal insufficiency and a violation of
due process under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
when the court failed to limit the definition, in the abstract
portion of the jury charge, of "Intentionally" and "Knowingly"
to the proper criminal mental state under the law of parties.

3.) Whether it constituted error to deny a motion for mistrial when
the trial court allowed an undiscolsed DNA Expert witness to
provide the jury with an opinion that was undisclosed, unreliable
and unhelpful to the jury.

4.) Whether a video-taped confession should have been suppressed
when the investigating officer used the two-step interrogation
technique to extract incriminating evidence from the accused
without complying with Miranda and Article 38.22 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Pro. warning requirements in violation of the
Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Whether the failure to limit the definitions, in the abstract portion of the jury charge, of 'Intentionally' and 'Knowingly' to the nature of the conduct, where the accused is being prosecuted for murder, and in the alternative, under the law of parties, constitutes a violation of due process under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution