Petitioner's first degree murder conviction was invalid under People v, Chiu as
there was no basis to find that the iurv did not rely on aiding and abetting
under the natural and probable consequences theory as argued by the prosecutor .
The Trial Court read the verdict forms Count 1 , for first degree murder, with no
special findings: Count 2, first degree residential robbery; Count 3, first
degree burglary. The jury made a specific finding that a person was present
during the commission of the first degree burglary to be true. No other findings
were made. (1 CT 238.')
The due process clause found in both the Fourteenth and Fifth amendments to the
United States Constitution requires oroof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact
necessary to constitute the crime in order to convict the accused. This should
hold true fnr felony murder cases , but. the doctrine of felony murder circumvents
this important principle and allows for conviction and punishment to be the same
as for those who committed a murder with malice aforethnught .

DID THE TRIAL COURT PERMIT PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY ALLOWING THE JURY FIND FIRST
DEGREE MURDER IN A CASE WHERE THEY MADE NO SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT ON EACH AND
EVERY REQUIRED ELEMENT OE THE OFEENCE?

WAS PETITIONER GIVEN DUE PROCFSS PROTECTIONS WHEN THE PROSECUTOR WAS RELIEVED OF
PROVING ALL ELEMENTS TO FIRST DEGREE MURDER BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

DID THE COURT OF APPEAL. VIOLATE THE PROSCRIPTION IN SANDSTROM?

Did the trial court permit prejudicial error by allowing the jury to find first-degree murder without specific findings of fact on each required element?