Opinion ID: 71829
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: A. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Thompson’s rape conviction. B. Whether the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. C. Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson formed the specific intent to kill Balarzs. D. Whether trial counsel were ineffective. 1. Whether trial counsel’s failure to show that no rape occurred constitutes ineffectiveness. 2. Whether trial counsel’s failure to show that Thompson did not intend to kill constitutes ineffectiveness. 3. Whether trial counsel’s failure to present a mental health defense constitutes ineffectiveness. 4. Whether trial counsel’s failure to prevent the introduction of inadmissible evidence constitutes ineffectiveness. 5. Whether trial counsel’s failure to call character witnesses constitutes ineffectiveness. E. Whether a prejudicial variance existed between the evidence and the indictment.