A h FourteenAmenden Contittinauarnts
of "Due Proces ofLaw and"equal protection of the laws"
duly satistied for a Defendant accused of a crime involving
( the exculpatory testimony of an eye-witmess regarding
absence of intent is suppressed, and
dspaging inpat onnestimoy out
the Defendant's
alleged intent is admited, while
exoeratingrt-hand eye-witnessestinony fro
an dserving party of the incident is suppresed?

Was the Cowrtof Appeals decision contrary to the
2)
rules of evidence estallished by numeraus decisions
of the Coort of Appeals and the Supreme Court?

(a) the trial court aboused its disaretionand erred
when it overruled the oojection'to Brian Lovedo's
layopinion testimony.

) the decision of the Court of Appeals erred
in affiming the thial court and is contrary.
to Evidence Rules 602,701,704 and at least
five precedented cases cited within this petition.

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees were satisfied for a defendant accused of a crime involving intent, where exculpatory eyewitness testimony was suppressed and inculpatory lay opinion testimony was admitted