state here presented no evidence of specific prior senses committed by the latin kings testimony from the gang expert included extensive information about iraqi symbols and colors associated with the latin king which related to elements of the specific statutory definition but neither the expert testimony nor any other evidence made mention of any specific offenses committed by the latin kings and without evidence of prior specific offenses committed by the l no he did not mention any specific prior crimes he provided and if and opinion but absent other evidence consistent with his for its fire decisions that's insufficient beyond a reasonable doubt so the fact that he had two decades of police experience for purchase a bigger than so one hundred hundred game crime investigations that that wasn't enough for him to give an opinion that they were street g without going through all the necessary definitional of it i take no issue with his opinion and i'm not challenging that the foundation for his you know i missed the argument is simply that without mention either in from  to do prior offenses by the latin kings in addition to evidence about hierarchy and history and all that kind of thing is hardly likely to tip the scales against a defendant simply because of mention of two prior crime s and certainly when evidence of those kinds come in the defendant would be entitled to a limiting instruction for you know how the jury could sit or that evidence again and then if did the defendant testify that he was a member of the why things he did he doesn't a street gang within the details definition of street gang under the stop act that's simply not relevant to it at all the this great pitch should adopt the analysis i used by the majority in firearm by a street gang member beyond reasonable doubt there are no other questions thank you  concert with regard to the specificity are you saying that's not really doesn't really need to be proven as a an element of the crime i mean that portion where you have to be specific about two other crim with this time period so we don't just you know we don't dispute the meaning of x the not required to prove a course or pattern of criminal activity that at least one offense was committed after the effective date of the yet both offenses were committed within five years of each other and less at least one offense involves the right to say you know witnesses it tell testimony so jackson certainly is a sort of a minimum standard to ensure that the state has put forward evidence but it's also up testimony for example that defendant hung out with a bunch of friends and they called themselves a street gang there there might be a legitimate question about whether the state had proven that this was a street gan or street came with mr kriegel you heard justice the bills reference to the statutory burden who disagree with this question about what's in the statute what's required no your honor  if i'm wrong what i understand is you can have an entity that is they again but you still have the statute on my understand you still have to prove that the gang did a b c they had to commit these offenses rather than a time frame this legislature has some intent why they put that in and why it was needed because it was gang related well surely you don't dispute that the last things must be must have committed