a reasonable doubt primarily because as the son in law of the foster mom of the three complainants he did not occupy a position of trust authority or super that i think is also a program to focus on reasonable doubt because the remaining three issues while there is seemingly there error in each of those for different reasons then turns to question the record as for instance the fourth issue regards prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments when the prosecutor stated without there having been any evidentiary basis that millions of people went through life without disclosing sexual assault the problem there is that there was none preserved error and so than obviously the analysis turns  defendant was the son in law of a foster mother who had several foster children she just by twenty five throughout the year that in this particular case there were two charges related t that is the one conviction that arose out of this case there were three charges related to s and and one charge related to a he and of course i'm using the initials because of privacy concerns and you matter there was also another juvenile d c who who insisted throughout the trial that there had been no inappropriate relationship with the defendant and she was called as a defense witness but the state wanted to use recordings of conversations analysis defense counsel requested leave to cross examine and go into some of the prejudicial nature and that was not allowed by the trial court who said that he had enough to go on and bring to the motion and trial t a the first witness and again the only one against whom there was a conviction or related to there was a conviction testified as to two incidents she said one basically was very suddenly defendants in gauged in sexual behavior with her and that's when the evidence of her as to the other offense and she at different times reverse the order of the two events she said that it happened when he had driven her to his workplace although she could not identify where he worked and she identified certain features of the office such as part of the medical facility when the importance  such testimony or evidence regarding the defendant also fronted several convictions that had resulted from a finding by the trial court that there were certain under convictions that were allowed there were certain convictions that the state wasn't going to be allowed to use from the from the defendant's stated a series of convictions when asked by trial counsel what are your family history and  or a truthfulness but was instead one that had been a second count in a felony case and the trial court instead of listening to convictions in that case simply said that he would allow this felony case to be used as impeachment there was no discussion although the state has indicated that at the time of the state's attorney knew and had certified copies of convictions showing that it was a misdemeanor and those this conviction was used by the state during its close when the state i meant that on how one factor demonstrating that the defendant was not a good father was the fact that they're in this in danger and this state also commented in closing again that millions of people are in society don't report sexual assault there have been no expert testimony on that basis although the trial court had said that indicated that that would be considered by the or the state never revisited the subject and that testimony was not presented to the drily turning then to the first substantive argument and then as i said the primary argument is that the defendant in this case was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt primarily because and there are other reasons as well but as an element of the things it was not established that he was in a position of trust or thirty or supervision  certainly was not a person who was placed in a position of authority with the complainants or one who is trust in fact the exact opposite as is the case the defendant was as i stated the son in law of the foster parent now his wife was approved by easy abbess and i believe affleck charities and the supervising agencies and as a babysitter and and provided and the foster mother the mother in law indicated that she did not apply for him to be approved because she knew that with his criminal background he wouldn't pass an investigation she also stated that the girls in her  were such that they cannot be trusted with a man along so very specifically he was never alone with the girls the foster mother left her with the while under the condition in th the four year period that's at issue and possibly three years the pending on how the dates of all during the majority of here the defendant was incarcerated and certainly there is no person who's going to be coming from prison and home and in one instance home for a month who's going to want to be able to develop a relationship or to be held out as somebody who is an authority figure for these these the only legal determinations have been made are that there are categories that seemingly per se qualify but there hasn't been to my knowledge and the sort of termination taking the boys to a i think to get can rent movies and come back so to the extent that there's been a category established there there is not a legal it probably is any sort of regard as an authority figure or as a trusted figure or a supervisory figure the state has pointed out that one of the girls not the one to whom the conviction applies testified i think that this court can consider it as as a as a legal matter to the extent that this is an element of the events and the question is whether viewed in the light most favorable to the state he and so based on the facts again in the light most favorable to the stay the defendant simply did not qualify as an authority figure or a figure of trust but there was no indication as there are in most or a teacher or someone upon whom these people live and that is one of the questions that makes this more of a legal determination is that there's always a question of whether he is an relation to these kids and the answer proves simply do not show that he wasn't already figure or a trusted figure by these kids again you know another comparison to see or is that you were dealing with families that had a mutual relationship over a ten year period and mutual trust in your kid come over for the night for that's fine but here the foster mother placed the children with the defendants  with the state saying the defendant or millions of people go and don't work or defenses that happen to them but there ben no testimony about this and it's a natural assumption that if somebody is circumstances that would prevent an immediate outcry if there is a fear particularly of a father or another family figure you know under those circumstances then the delay can be understood but as to this one because the natural assumption is that people will reveal something that has happened to them of this nature and in this case we have a girl who left the home and had been gone for a year and a handle before there was any indication from her and that only came when d c of us went and interviewed her based on a report from somebody else with that kind of the way there's a natural question and it's certainly fair for defense council to argue with but that argument was strip when the state stood up and said well we all know millions of people are walking around and they're not reporting and that doesn't mean that the police means anything like th fourteen and the sexual assault occurred in your earlier so there would have been this year in which she could have been building up the trust relationship where she first met him when she was placed in a foster home during more arrests to find it was the son in law of her foster mother and she said they would hang out as a family so she viewed him as part of the family g a a testify that she had a good relationship with the fan and in fact he testified that defendant was the only adult in her life that she had a good relationship with that at the time  under those circumstances she is a the evidence to show that she had trust in the fact that regarding the testimony of defendants wife and events mother in law that she was never left alone incident which makes sense because she was fourteen at the time of the incident and she'd already been in ten different foster homes before coming to moore is this morris had guardianship of her so she thought that if she reported the incident she still wouldn't be moved from  house to testify that was just scared of defendant and he also testified that the people she told about the sexual assaults didn't believe the verdict was supported by the evidence and should be affirmed  proceeding in or her eyes following the state's comments i would note that the state indicated they were simply looking at one count here but i would note that looking at the other counts the other two remaining on which the jury if one of the defendant of the charge much of the testimony demonstrates the reliability or lack of reliability of the testimony that was given for instance you know that and one of the difficulties or one of the the comparisons between those three sets in charge is that the two for which the senate was convicted were instances where the defendant could show that it wasn't possible that the events occurred as was testified as to the third it was one when he couldn't account for the time of there weren't enough details that were given that he  any way defending itself against the charge particularly when you're scheduled over a for your time here and this is one of the problems that was noted in part of where the second this group consider other crimes evidence and found that one of the factors that the court must consider when admitting this kind of evidence is whether the defendant is able to defend himself against a charge or whether the time period is so they that he's not able to and for that engaging in this kind of prejudice versus for the determination without an opportunity or defendants to be able to defend against charges in a they thank their head over this this period when there was nothing about that allegation that would allow them to defend against the defendant as president as and the court in error in its admission of other crimes of the other crimes evidence wasn't particularly s testimony of a relationship or testimony provided by s n that they got drunk when evening while watching movies and had sex with the others who have a geisha is where the jury found that the defendant was not kill the only showing was that there was force or threat of force and that there was no buildup to the events that it wasn't any sort of relationship it was inappropriate but instead it was a horse and was charged in that fashion as well you know this charge was based on the position of trust and the position of process simply wasn't shown in the instant case turning to the state's argument about the closing simply being hyperbole that has been allowed in cases where there is an evidentiary basis where for instance d n a shows that it's a forty six trillion to one chance of it being somebody and this was an area of the or specifically enunciated was not something that was simply within the ordinary canon of the citizen and therefore something that should have had never denge area basis and did not and again the inappropriate and the evidence so smeared the defendant that the the fear in case law is that the jury is going to convict because he's a bad guy and because he's painted as a bad consistency in the verdicts but it the fear is that the jury saw him as a bad guy who needed to be punished and he didn't have a defense for that offense with the other two he could say for instance the charge related to a p where she said that in a proximately twenty minute period the defendant's wife had gone shopping for movies to rent and then came back that defendant and suddenly s had sex with her and that in the end on one occasion when she said that they were alone there was testimony from neighbors that he was across the street at their house and testimony from others that he was not similarly with the one charge related says he when she was acquitted she testified that they had driven to his office she didn't know where the office was shes of the purpose in the building that was not with the exception of one room that is employer said he didn't have access to with the evidence or with the claims that are made and with defendant appearing to be as bad as the evidence made him look this is evidence that didn't relate to the offense in the same way that it might have to do the other occasion where there was some sort of grooming or relationship at all then in that instance that's the concern that there isn't an ability to defend against that and that the jury without the evidence to actually rebut the charge opted to find him guilty as very clear that the state's case must be built on the strength of its case and the defendant should not be convicted based on the weakness of his own case and it's our contention that it was the weakness as that that count coupled with the admission of this other crimes of unknowns that was never viewed with a mind toward the president of nature as the court is required to consider i'm not so sure if that's the case and the state had conceded that there was a double jeopardy issue it had tried to reinstate th