Does a state court's decision that a state statute prevents the state courts from conducting analysis pursuant to the United States Supreme Court precedent for retroactive application of newly amended statutes, or of principles of law created through new or amended statutes, conflict with relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court, or is this an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court?

2. Does a state court's decision to not apply United States Supreme Court analysis for retroactive application to a challenged state statutory amendment conflict with relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court, or is this an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court?

3. Does the Arizona state court's failure to give retroactive effect to 2018 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 266, §84-2, and the statutory amendments enacted thereby—which effectively changed Arizona Revised Statutes [permitting] a scheme in which lack of sexual interest was an "affirmative defense" to be proven by the defendant against a charge of sexual abuse or child molestation (thus reducing the state's burden of proof) to one in which "lack of sexual interest" no longer is a defense but an element which the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt—conflict with relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court, or is this an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court?

4. Does the Arizona state court's failure to deem unconstitutional and void ab initio the statutory scheme which flowed from the enactment of 49.93 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 436, §4, and required a defendant to prove the "affirmative defense" of a "lack of sexual interest" against a charge of sexual abuse or child molestation or otherwise relieved the state from having to prove the element of sexual interest beyond a reasonable doubt, conflict with relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court, or is this an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court?

5. Does the state court's denial of issuance of critical jury instructions in accordance with the law in effect at the time of the trial conflict with relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court, or is this an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court?

Whether a state court's decision that a state statute prevents the state courts from conducting analysis pursuant to United States Supreme Court precedent for retroactive application of newer amended statutes, or of principles of law created through new or amended statutes, conflicts with the United States Supreme Court