phone or any of the text messages to watkins because the trial court heard emitting less evidence and this area denied the defendant his right to a fair trial this court should reverse and remained with regard to the first issue requested not that i recall your honor but the judge the jury the judge didn't shock the jury that it should be used for intent but even though even so the instruction doesn't sure there are because it is part of the year the judge is telling the jury to consider this the bigger fact that the defendant had been convicted before for possession of cannabis with intent to deliver that he intended to deliver the cocaine in this case there's no similarities presented there is nothing it's pure propensity evidence and that's exactly how the state use it in closing argument the state i mean they used the state used as evidence argue that because he had prior conviction for an intense deliberate and he intended to deliver the cocaine in this case and also the state referred to the defendant as a drug dealer over twelve times during their closing argument and the erroneous admission of other crimes evidence here is a high risk of prejudice here's a problem it would have put before the jury prejudicial evidence of drug transactions despite recognizing this judge perry admitted to entire text message power stations that consisted of nine pages in order for this evidence to have been admissible to see it was required to present to form two foundations one for the photographs and the other for the text messages there's only one case in illinois text messages and there's a third district apart in these people versus chromic and in that case there were the trial court admitted transcripts of text messages exchanged between a victim and if and when the victim of the defendant dealer over twelve times during the argument  t didn't i now believe that they referred specifically to the substance but they said that it was that they were people seeking to buy drugs from charles and this is the exact prejudice that judge curry recognize us whether or not the state had recognized or had said is that this was the exact substance while they did it the the evidence that was put before the jury by admitting text messages why is evidence of past sale for crack and seeking to buy cocaine and the defendant was on trial for two different cocaine offens here prejudiced is how hard by judge perry's instruction on first judge perry told the jury that he was the one who was offering the evidence and that is that's improper and then he told the jury that he was doing this over the defendant's objection so that the jury would know that he was going to offer to him anyway even though the defense was trying to keep this away from them it's not unreasonable that a lay general would have appointed more weight to rule on dead ends that they look at the language the way the judge admitted these these messages and he actually did the messages themselves not just pieces of them so i think i i mout i think i was wrong in the way i am  present that in my brief i believe the message themselves were admitted in their entirety the way i i read the judge's language again i get it i don't know why i thought that way six months ago when i wrote the brief but i'm go talk about these messages found on the phone and that they were that i mean they dealt with drugs and then the discussion about the specific messages came afterwards that the fact that that these messages dealt mainly with drugs hundreds of these messages was not objected to recollection but i mean just crystal clear that there was no objection when he said that these hundreds of messages dealt with drugs beat the very low level of similarity needed in cases such as this in a case where we're dealing with modus operandi or common design common plan and the supreme court has said that in cases dealing with  that the inherent similarities of these charges on the face are are so similar that that that the trial judge did not uses the discretion in finding that this was the current conviction was similar  to the prior conviction  hundreds of drug related text messages whether or not there were hundreds of drug related text messages do not connect the phone in any way to the defendant and so the fact that defense counsel may not object and that is is irrelevant to the fact that the judge allowed on prejudicial and this will oh i'm contested declarations of unknown declare and seeking to buy drugs from somebody named charles evans that was presented  is the court has held that general areas of similarity are sufficient you know can satisfy the substantial similarity quire it doesn't say that general only general similarities in general areas