(1) WHETHER Due process prohibits Florida from excluding Hews rea .instruction from Burglary CHARGES or WHETHER IT IS STRUCTURAL ERROR For Trial courts to Refuse to submit aw element to jurors IF SUCH ELEMENT IS ESSENTIAL, IM DISPUTE, AND I As THE Topmost materialconsideration , Highly capable of ACQUITTING ftCC US&S>'

(2) WHETHER, TENAWCV CONTROVERTS THEnecessary Mews REA ELEMENT FbRT-HE CRIME OF BURGLARY OR WHETHER FAILURE TD SUFFICIENTLY REBUT A VULNERABLE TENANT 'S AUTOMATICALLY REASONABLE B6(J|6F NEGAT1N6 MB MS REA IS CAPABLE, BY ITSELf- OF REMDERMslG BURGLARY COMUICTIOM CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED ^

(3) Does CHARGING CONTRADICTORY SETS OP ALTERNATIVE lNSTRuariONS, R6QUtRING CONFLICTING LEGAL FINDINGS FOR the same Facts , eecome capable , BV itself , of rendering trial CoMsrrruno na-lly inadequate *

(4) WHETHER DUAL THEORY LANGUAGE IN FLORIDA'S CAPITAL MURDER STATUTE AUTHORIZES UNLIMITED OVER RULING OF A STRUCTURAL RIGHT To GRAND TURY RE INDICTMENT

(5) WHETHER CUMULATIVE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OP &RROR IB CAPABLE, BY ITSELF, OF RENDERING A-TRIAL Comstitutiomally inadequate ^

Whether due process prohibits Florida from excluding mens rea instruction from burglary charges or whether it is structural error for trial courts to refuse to submit an element to jurors if such element is essential, in dispute, and the topmost material consideration, highly capable of acquitting accused