misinterpret what the collateral matter and was robin's case these messages were certainly relevant and as the court's aware of that evidence is any evidence that has a tendency to make prove material fact more or less like in this case these mr nunn received one hundred fifty dollars from mr mitchell by use of force as part of an armed robbery and these pieces of messages tend to make it more likely that this was a gun sale and this money changed hands voluntarily as part of that  location of where they're going to meet which road street is also in those facebook messages and the face of messages or timestamps for about an hour an hour and twenty minutes before the shooting occurs if you speak  presented in this case justice requires that the defendant be given every opportunity to counter the state's proof and in this case mr nunn was unreasonably denied the opportunity to offer evidence that would impeach the state which is why these face of masses were so essential they contradict mr mitchell's version of events in peaches has money and they support the privatization that mr man was not committing an armed robbery when this occurred but was engaged in the sale of a gun the imposition of a life sentence was an abuse of discretion by the court here the only reason the only reasoning that the trial court gave on the record for the imposition of the maximum life sentence circumstances of this offense and characteristics of this defendant as we've discussed in our brief mr nunn was just six month passes eighteenth birthday when this offensive heard he was in fact still in high school and the bomb didn't have some even though this was a discretionary sentence and the defendant is eighteen how many times they say nothing magical happens between when someone seventeen years and eleven months old and when they turn eighteen in that last month just because mr nunn was eighteen years six months as they mature and as for that reason that youth should weigh against the imposition of a life sentence in this case the sentence was discretionary not mandatory and the court here isn't relevant whether it was a gun deal gone bad or armed robbery well it is relevant only in the sense that why were they in the car about evidence there is no other evidence connecting that there is a through and it could just as easily been bullied by the jury or is this just was this meeting was set up for a robbery for the money with method you want to change the result crimes because the state and the trial court seem to be using harris to say it never matters where someone is whether murder hack or work before they witness a murder but that's not what harris was about in harris the witness was at a street corner where he was picked up by the defendant and then driven fifteen minutes away to a different location where he witnessed the murder and of course of all it's collateral to ask him what his purpose was to be on that street corner fifteen minutes before the murder at different location and i would agree with it but then we have here the issue here is this all takes place on the same street in the same heart as the shooting so it's not collateral is very relevant as i discussed and don't believe that it is cumulative as well there was a three fifty seven in the face of messages versus you know a thirty eight that was actually in a car that in order to be relevant is have a tendency to make proof material fact more or less likely the fact that the to defend it claims that he exchanges the gone for money and the gun is turned on him when there aren't happy about the fact that it's not the right caliber so in this factual scenario it is relevant whether or not they match for the