different positions. But it's obvious ... It's obvious that ... First of all, as I said before, State's Exhibit 12 is a relevant piece of evidence but it is so gruesome that the Court believes that prejudice outweighs the relevance of it. And that's the reason I didn't admit that objection. But it would also be relevant to explain why it is that somebody wouldn't see the dura because of the huge, massive swelling of the child's brain. Uh ... Very extensive swelling of the brain. I believe the testimony was that the weight ... * *# "t "# * a But when you take the amount of swelling and the cireumstances I think that that's a perfectly, more than, it's -not even speculative, I think ... I think it is ... What I would find it to be a very convincing reason why some part of, the dura wa (<HOLDING>). IIL. The next issue is whether the trial
holding that the court is limited in amending a verdict after discharge of the jury and cannot invade the province of the jury holding that the trial court properly refused defendants instruction because it invaded the province of the jury holding that a jury does not invade the province of the board when it determines the probability of a capital defendants future dangerousness holding that a consequence instruction was properly refused holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case