you can step up in the den of fire south and then expect more punishment after now only in him or i don't think this man's going to be as aggressive i'm sorry richardson was lying and was going to have essentially this richardson did change her testimony she did go back she her initial answer to the very next question was she threw the soup on me she went back on her previous disavowal and after that she chose one  on me i don't remember i was angry regardless of the question in fact many of the questions and most of her answers were struck as the judge from by the judge as non responsive so no i don't believe this is any different or for the right to a focus examination of the witnesses including mrs businesses this is a witness who's testifying favorably but mr banks through counsel is not able to get out crucial information so she was certainly intimidated into effect  spills as a result of the accident they were having arguments ms richardson was following mr banks around the house with a bowl of soup that was admittedly very hot he went into the bathroom she followed him she was she was hearing testimony in which there was a wait for confrontation and the substantive evidence i'm sure the other subsection of one fifteen ten for the allegations in the the whole purpose whether you agree with it or you disagree with it and you and i are in the same boat on this that we don't have the right to say that the supreme court the legislature decides whether it's going to be accepted  in trial in an objection or a post trial motion seen here the standard here is abuse of discretion and even if the court refused its discussion it improperly deters a witness the condition can was no testimony or the admissions were me prior to the witness taking the stand therefore affecting the finest child here that isn't the case there is no prejudice shown the victim testified in complete now the court also did not prejudge the victim's testimony because it clearly emphasized one stating its verdict i've felt for the defendant that all the testimony that the victim running to testify to in favor of the fan it was presented the victim causing burns and permit to spare mints it was not reckless because intent was shown clearly through the evidence the photographs showed the nature of and extent of the birds that were consistent with followed her into the bathroom with the pot of soup directly off the stove through the printer and then he didn't go get go try to get help when his girlfriend was severely bike he told her to shut up according to  this hearing testimony he didn't want anyone to hear he did write her go to the hospital he didn't take there's a hospital he didn't matter took the police to get help this is all very very consistent with the fact the defendant intentionally thr opportunity in his motion to reconsider to present any additional mitigation which he failed to do he based them and motion to reconsider a crime the fact that the court in a properly way the rehabilitative potential  stating on the stand that she was not telling she had not heard the truth under oath during the preliminary hearing testimony that there isn't a proper scrips that statement when those admonitions are given but this i'm sure is no prejudgment because she did not state in either admonition rather she believed their victim if they were before or during the preliminary hearing testimony or after during the after at trial that doesn't come close to a sentencing hearing i understand you're trying to defend the alamo here but this is ridiculous with the law doing different  you can look at this as the six and a half hour delay this is a totality of circumstances situation and that's how you took place between the actual exciting event and to clarence statement might have been six and half hours condition temporarily stills the capacity for reflection thus producing statements free of conscious fabrication that if you have a period of either six and a half or eight hours in this circumstance but you also have a situation where she acknowledged having created a why during the interim period when the police wanted to speak to her at her apartment when she in her words and she didn't put it very well said i told them i wasn't there clearly the reference is she miss identified herself and said the person they were looking for which was her wasn't there so she a six and a half or eight hour period of time more than enough time to suggest that there was time for fabrication but there actually was any minute fabrication during this period of time that here at that point in time when she missed identified herself to the police this was after she had been severely injured at the hands of but finding the defendant would not matter go get help the fed was telling her to would say presented nothing to support its assertion that the nature of the burns indicated throwing supressed spilling of soup and if you're honest have no other question i was lose even if there was some reticence there after he lost the ability to expect to have her explain why she came back first of all she changed her testimony her first but her first response on coming back w change testimony she was then she she then refused to provide a direct answer to explain why she had done that defense counsel tried to get out as an explanation for some inc