the error that the open the court of appeals found regarding the exclusion of evidence and that was also addressed at the district court level the district court seem to also agree that it was error to exclude evidence proceeding after the trial the state has said that the evidence proved that the parent didn't know who was attempting to break into the home at the time of the shooting which completely on was that these things didn't your evidence didn't matter because they you would test your the testimony at trial was that your client didn't know who was coming through the window so all these inferences about the person coming through the window didn't matter because if he didn't know who was coming through the window it wouldn't of man all these things about the person coming through wouldn't matter also he just as we pointed out we say are areas of the state for the proposition that in a situation like this when you're faced with an unknown intruder the legal the legal ramifications of your actions is not something that the lay person would know so he was afraid if you had made it to the shooting he was admitting to a crime going into this far so we could see that initially he did tonight to show bias bias or motive to lie or it was that the government didn't charge the person so the person getting off easy and so that would be the appropriate reason to question her or you if you've been charged and when you can argue to the jury that that's why she said these bad things  to wipe her hands of it but the theory you have for why it was harmful is not a proper everyday injury and purposes it i don't think you're allowed to put on or tell me if there's some  rule that allows you to put on evidence that the government really doesn't think it has that good a case who cares what the government thinks we we require prosecutors not to say i think the defendant is guilty you have to put it in terms of the evidence here can she can get into that the defendant is guilty or do you have any authority for putting on evidence for the purpose of showing that the prosecution the day before the incident happened the mother said she didn't remember she thinks it was during the week will that evidence went directly to the point that the state was trying to use the mother to show which is has already testified to this altercation and you wanted the mother to corroborate the first thing she heard it all though when she testified she gave an earlier date right in the same week since you believe she said she would remember but she believed  y weak and this is the states that signal you find who did testify that she had told him he was kicked out was whining about that when she testified that she said her mother was present at the time they had the argument that his mother was murder certainly your honor the state the state's theory was of course that mr davis picked up a loaded shotgun and aimed it at the window and fired with malice and without legal justification and evidence of malice comes directly from his interview with the take to be able for seventeen minutes he claimed that he was not the shooter he only heard a boom he got out of the children in the  this could be and is a self defense and it was only at that point that mr davis admitted to being the shooter so are you saying that dial per se is  there's certainly and now this malice doesn't mean he's he's upset with the victim it doesn't mean he has a motive it doesn't mean he has a reason it's just a deliberate intention to take a human life and his he has no reasonable fear of the victim or somebody coming into the apartment i thought in oklahoma law you have a right to shoot somebody breaking into your home if you are not if the defendant has not engaged in him with any illegal conduct at the time of the shooting and in this case mr davis was convicted felon humans prohibited from possessing a firearm and that negates so convicted felon can stand he fired one shot through the window he had three other shells in that shock and he fired one because despite the fact the claims they don't know who's out there they don't know how many people are out there he fired one shot even though he ha oh my lord i shot this guy and i'm afraid of what's going to happen to me because of it so i'm hiding i'm a felon so i'm hiding the gun and that that your honor is a conflicting inference of the evidence and when the sco is the evidence that she told him don't bring the weapon i talk to most of them it's all going to be ok or is it just after she talks to must in which she presumably did not know about she said don't worry about it because i'm worried that some of what you're talking about might be made based on her subjective thoughts that there's no evidence that the defendant was aware of i and i know where there is not any evidence direct evidence that she told mr davis of that conversation mr moss but i think based on the other evidence it can reasonably be inferred that she did so had she testified to all these various problems in the screen fear she had of the mr mostyn the victim and it was just not reasonable to believe that she did not tell mr davis about those the victim's identity he and he claims that he didn't know the victim's identity and just under these circumstances it wasn't reasonable for him to just pick up a firearm without as typically i mean has the state basically bought off on the idea at this point that the trial evidence showed that they really didn't know who was outside the window i mean because there's there are multiple statements outside the window at the time of the murder the evidence would have to show at the very least that he knew it was the victim he was shooting concerning to me it seems like things may be at trial there was an attempt to show that they knew who the victim was but that since then in response to arguments the state has sort of shifted positions to to say that they didn't know who was outside the window and they wanted to do that in order to cut again some of the arguments that the defense is making i mean do you do you agree that basically you've sort of switched positions not necessarily you specifically but the state i i don't agree with that completely you're out of it but of course the states the state's theory was he shot with malice aforethought and he came to the defense evidence close at all times note that you know they don't know who this person is out there if there can still be malice and yet the only two things that i heard you say that made sense to me about what malice was that he brought up a weapon which the purposes because they know who was going to be coming in the window and the provocation of the victim being the know he's going to come into the window and that's inconsistent with the theory that if the state's theory changed based on the trial of it and still have to prove a motive it didn't have to prove a conspiracy which which the record never mentions the word conspiracy and only had to prove the death of a human death was explain why they didn't charge her because she did have a right to defend her home so i guess she can she can conspire maybe i don't know maybe that was a period but it didn't if that's the case it really didn't matter whether he knew or didn't know who is breaking in he intentionally killed somebody and that's all you need to do because he's the only defense you could have a self defense which wasn't raised so was and defense counsel conceded early on that the stand your ground is not available to mr mr davis in this case and so it was never an issue on appeal because it it was everybody a elders defense of others buggers that would be his son statutorily he could defend his son with deadly force if he had a reasonable fear and so the jury was instructed on all of those defenses so the stand your ground is a separate defense from self defense protection of other protection or property depending on the situation it can be in the community the prosecution the stand your ground yes ok ok so so i'm sorry so  and that the jury has to find that he had a reasonable fear the defendant the same in this view and circumstances of that defendant the for the fear  jury not find that he was trying to find the only way they could find that he wasn't trying to defend his habitation then would be if he thought the person who was coming in with someone who had a right to come in so they would in and it was and it was someone who had a right to kill me or and that's yes the jury the jury could find that and that's not inconsistent with the arguments made from time to time by the prosecution that we agreed that the defendant didn't know who was coming in i'm very confused right now going see if i if they point is you're trying to distinguish between the general issues in the case in the issues upon which the defendant based his defense and the defense was based on i didn't know it was coming through and if that's your by this is your client versus the universe of issues in the case yes but it but it's totally relevant to the prosecution's argument to the prosecution's theory because the prosecution's theory could only be that the defendant knew who was coming true and if that's the case i don't see why the defendant can't put on evidence and show that to help the prosecution you know to counter the prosecution's theory may not be your theory of defense that would you're saying happen but it counters what the prosecution has to prove the prosecution would have to prove and to to overcome the defens them if i disagree because the under under the defense habitation he has to have a reasonable fear of a felony being committed upon the dwelling and that's where the defense of habit jury reasonably reject the defense because because he denied me the shooter for one he denied being the shooter and the so that this court most presume that the  on in the jury with the structure and that requires belief reasonable belief that the and that someone's coming into your home to commit a felony that language is to commit a felony upon the dwelling or within th that evidence we do anything but help the prosecution with the evidence there were complaining there was a big school it was that the see this mother was present when he was banned from the home and that was to counteract the was that because she's was because she said this happened a few days earlier and she also said that the victim had spent the prior night at the home secretary i don't i don't think that  is now breaking in the window after smoking p c p that's that's what we were doing to counteract the state's theory that he was trying to break in because he thought he had a right to do was there any evidence limits of the of the game youngest judges grow up you know you're an equal with it was it was there any evidence that your client knew about the previously she was fearful but there was no evidence that he knew specifically that that she was coming through the through the window you know that well that the big that the victim was the person coming through the very i've been are in the case from the beginning so now you know i'm confused about how you go and say that person planned with another person to murder a person to set them up to break into a home and when you argue at every everything that they knew about a person would become relegated missile and of another problem another thing it is confusing about the case is that it's the knowledge of the home or response that admitted they didn't have proof that she had told him about any of this they just wanted the jury to infer that you must know what it was ms vons knowledge and what she knew and whether she was actually afraid the state actually said that the worst she's faking danger