commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.” Id. Only certain types of changes in the rules of evidence fall into this fourth category. There is a violation under this category when laws that require a minimum type or amount of evidence for conviction are changed by eliminating a type of evidence or decreasing the amount of evidence needed for conviction. However, an ex post facto problem does not arise for a law that “does nothing more than admit evidence of a particular kind in a criminal case ... which was not admissible under the rules of evidence as enforced by judicial decisions at the time the offense was committed.” Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U.S. 380, 387, 18 S.Ct. 922, 43 L.Ed. 204 (1898); see Hopt v. People, 110 U.S. 574, 589, 4 S.Ct. 202, 28 L.Ed. 262 (1884) (<HOLDING>). While the decision in Payne allowed victim
holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation holding that state work release regulation was not an ex post facto law holding that state statutory bans against employment of convicted felons in certain jobs did not impose punishment under ex post facto clause holding no ex post facto violation for a law allowing for convicted felons to testify as competent witnesses because the law did not affect the quantity or the degree of proof necessary to establish  guilt