David James Chapman v. State

Opinion

T$E StOrte OPTBX/1S

Dav id Jar*© Chapmoon Of MfififS -0hl4^^Mk Q^juw£u^d&~. *e skxos >4ppQTi\jt/viemt Of Co;MSP. [- MAR nm TOPHER.A. CHRISTOPHER. PRINE/ A. PRINE

etERK-

.&ThTS THE Zh^Dnsf of flBcgRglZQlS tepp^gn-tofrop °\n-hne appp.o) Prxyerl 7raFi fr.n ±v£ oboiie cause J CfWly =fch^" X ffir, 1MDXGENI grvj U^rtfa QQfc rYVnfiS It) felYlPioy QaiiOS£J of gy OUJQ ChxfiMc* ar^A 1r. here (-y fEgu&s± Hag cour+To /fopoTftr-

f>&^r5^pY / PCcP£

hlir^gj -ffhm ThliS Pate J6HOf M*n(V 2oi5 nao£R ThR S-tafr£ [S oMere^ -to Osgood 1t>-\ViVs ... . ,-F no re^varse. K_reCTeiygA :ThP. reffrnrlocore mot/on tA^>» fa>,g(hfii-&\ ft?.Tfg yce&gnt-ty-TAimrr^rnrK^ ppypq pce-Senfty-T,Mrnrr^rna-^c4 TOj^g !TL±k£ _ county b-bms' -... . TaTi tN , Wfifiis gx/nvy-fr ..jrrty-taxoft

••ml -(tyggoi-pp r^-fn/go^d rprr^Gf Exer/A^ m F£bua\726 20 B

(De^rAnnf-y VtfTg. cnThfe TW?, l>y o¥ £015 chm? Id ££ h^rri by mz the np-ft/A*^ bofeffl -for iM flppoftftrryn-f cf GxcSJ onrii It 4ppi?pCS 3D fhTS CCt/H- fhar4h^ nnatFori Should hft

G^fit-e^ Qftnredi AoditiS S& ofHgr-edi

cttHge M % "To 1st oram- ca*± o£ /foy^is 2/2^/3 ThoflX\Q,< -fip oHim nog, po.eftgfficn ov i j^ft UxkJLjfl&pte fTu?. irSaxoo^ogJ ZT)—lot

frrr ^ fY^y ja) seoJ> n^ q v& £sx ffrpoB- P ^ tiS

Sl^^rp^nA fv£^h£ &. ^c X/i VI y 9 3»

Co 'tf^ ^ 8f

P &-•

&

-\J iiiiii

ifl w O V4 & W Q O r-