This the example of how to write the issue section on, that I mention earlier

The second substantive issue was under Evid.R. 403(A), which excludes relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay. Knapic argued that the autopsy photograph and the related testimony from the medical examiner was in violation of Evid.R. 403. He argued that they were biased and should be excluded, but since the images were relevant to Mrs. Davis’ death it was used in trail as probative value. Knapic brings up the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ decision in Hiner v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 5th Dist. No. 2005CA00034, 2005-Ohio-6660, in support of excluding the photograph as was done in this court of trial, however, it was properly excluded under a different circumstance than his. Due to the inclusion of Mrs. Davis’ autopsy, Mr. Davis had relevant evidence of mental anguish and trauma.

On the subject of forbidding speculation of insurance, Knapic brought up a procedural issue in Davis v. Wooster “that the trial court sua sponte offered a jury instruction on liability insurance that incorrectly injected extrajudicial evidence into the jury deliberation” (pp. 11). Mr. Davis further argues that the law was correctly conveyed, where speculation on insurance was averted by jurors, only taking into account the evidence. Knapic then brings up another csae, 4262 Robbins Ave. Restaurant Co. v. Slanco, regarding speculation versus evidence. But again, this case was not similar of that, there was no improper testimony regarding liability insurance. Since the court’s instruction neither implied or not implied the liability insurance of the defendant, the statement of the jury was accurate.