Opinion ID: 3150731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Graves’s indictment was defective.

Text: II. Whether Graves’s counsel, Shirlee Baldwin, provided ineffective assistance. III. Whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of Graves’s prior bad acts to be admitted at trial. IV. Whether the trial court erred in allowing G.W.’s father to testify at trial. V. Whether the trial court erred in allowing statements to be introduced at trial pursuant to the “tender years” exception. VI. Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction. VII. Whether the various witnesses’ statements were conflicting such that the jury’s verdict should be called in to question. VIII. Whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. IX. Whether Graves was denied a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. X. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Graves’s motion to sever the indictment. 2 The trial court found that Graves previously had been convicted of commercial burglary and two counts of receiving stolen property, and he had been sentenced to serve five years for each count. 4 XI. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Graves’s objection regarding the State’s reference to a jury instruction during closing arguments. XII. Whether the cumulative errors warrant a reversal.