that exactly state of mind would it i mean if if the notes indicated the victim's intent to break up with the defendant that isn't exactly state of mind and the statement such as what i think you're talking about are not offered for the truth the matter asserted if they go to show the effect on the listener ok that's a separate million cases a separate theory of the civility and that's not what offered before the truth of the matter asserted rather than under the hearsay exception and that's what we will hear when you when you admit wallerstein is for the proposition that if you allow these statements  e the remaining evidence is circumstantial in this case there's if you take the motive of the jury as a piece of circumstantial evidence although i think that contributes to the  think it's very difficult to do that when i feel the film is starting from the wrong premise the first person premise that this evidence was only admitted to show the victim state of mind and follows that up with the notion that the victim's state of mind was not independently relevant the problem with that is business was admitted to show the victim state of morrow and the defendant's mode of because the victim's state of mind increased the likelihood that she communicated this information to the defense of her intent her play and her feelings which in turn were spoken to in colin as well as the fact that the wife and coleman had packed her bags she or her military dress uniform i mean that that is all evidence that increases the likelihood not of the effect on the listener of the person who simply that this shouldn't have been admitted that her state of mind was not relevant he says it wasn't relevant we say it actually was relevant and that was the arm of the trial for accept it and i'd like to know if this argument is based on the idea that this was the only for state of  it had a connection to other aspects of the case ahead certainly connections to other statements that the victim had made so to view with an artificial isolation this is why i said i sort of feel like we're talking cross purposes you would agree that  i don't understand how one can look at smith make the ineffective assistance of counsel argument based solely on smith the only case cited the defense opening brief ignore the five published first district five courts have ruled that this is not deficient performance so i don't i don't i don't really get said i just i don't want to talk cross purposes but at the same time i don't feel as though there has been a response to that on the five first district cases that dispose of this entire ordeal and performance i also hope that there is a basis to address that or prejudice this court does not need to decide that part of the issue though i think i think the defendant has a big obstacle in front of him to there was more than one physical act of indicating story of a fire even a nice to have one act one crime without even getting to the question of how the state tried to to apportion next you know if you look at if you just say that everything is within the discretion of the trial court we have laws to guide the court in when the trial court disregards those rules then the bet is the use of discretion to decide to disregard the supreme court cases  statements are not admissible since any use of them to establish a defendant's motive would be used to establish the truth of the content which is exactly what the hearsay rules of exclusion or designed to avert that's what's happening here they're trying to