A. DID THE APPEALS COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE ERROR-LADEN
CLOSING ARGUMENT BY THE PROSECUTER, TAKEN IN ITS TOTALITY,
CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

B. DID THE APPEALS COURT ERR IN ITS HOLDING THAT THE, TOTALITY
OF ERRORS" COMMITTED BY DEFENDANT'S TRIAL COUNSEL' 227 STiT®:
CONSTITUTE ENEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WHERE SUCH
ERRORS INCLUDED FAILING TO OBJECT TO JURY INSTRUCTIONS
WHICH SEPARATED THE JURY'S ROLE AS FACT FINDER FROM THE
REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD OF PROOF, WHERE THE DEFENDANT'S
ENTIRE CASE RELIED ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THE JURY COULD NOT ,
CONCLUDE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S
OR THE COMPLAINANT'S VERSION. OF EVENTS WAS TRUE.

Did the appeals court err in holding that the error-laden closing argument by the prosecutor, taken in its totality, create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice?