the issue here at trial was whether or not had any fail to appreciate the criminality of his conduct when he shot his son there was substantial evidence presented to the jury on both sides of this issue she told the doctors that he had reported being scratched by the devil so there's really no dispute that at any had serious mental issues and that he was delusional the defense presented an expert doctor who testified that had he suffered from asked the nature and severity of by the academy's mental illness the state disagreed about whether or not you would suffer from schizophrenia and just read about it had whether or not you perceive the criminality this conduct the scenarios when you have an even number of experts on each side of the insanity issue you know one for the stand one for the defense two for the state two for the defense and there's agreement about whether or not a defending you know has a mental disease in the only whole i mean yes correct you would think i would i mean i'm no expert of course but when it comes down to can someone appreciate whether or evidence for its truth and they must have considered the evidence for its truth because the state itself argued that that was one less important pieces of evidence in this case the state needs sure to place this diagnosis before the jury during its examination of both nature of the offense and the charges it's this isn't just a you know passing commentary on his mental health she clearly needed she was making a concrete evaluation that it was to be used for purposes housing in the facility regarding the second prong which is whether the statement was to establish a particular fact the question here is whether or not objective circumstances would have led a reasonable that the son was molesting one of the other daughters and no reasonable psychiatrist going to seeing that her diagnosis would not be used against her in this case it was entirely foreseeable that she knew this insanity issues w very briefly long as to whether whether or not the evidence was closely dallas in this case counsel argues that there's no nexus between his detachment from reality and shooting his son dr frank gang provided credible opinion that one he was delusional to he was paranoid schizophrenic three he was detached from reality at the time  shooting so he certainly establishing nexus he was perhaps knew he was shooting his son because of his unrealistic belief system he was operating under under at the time the at that time of the shooting he didn't appreciate it was wrong so it's it's this he had no detachment from reality and that's when he was in that beat process and that's what he was processed in what was happening around him he didn't appreciate his role and that's the nexus between his paranoid schizophrenia his delusions about his son molesting his daughter and him believing he was he seems so detached from reality that he believes you need to shoot his son for whatever reason so the  reports nor nor is there any reason to in fact i mean step he provides almost even a more difficult test of meat for determining whether or not aids even is testimonial because not only do you consider the primary purpose but you also consider whether or not it was a solemn thing that's that goes above and beyond which does and again when asked for the primary purpose the question is what it boils down to is this is this is a scene me to