reason for defendant description of the box from his drug addiction the drug being found in his daughter's body following her down by way of background on may seventh two thousand and twelve defendant's one year old daughter was in a great deal  endangering the life of a child causing death and that he will flee because the life of his child to be endangered in their place in proximity to are committed access to the drugs a box a controlled substance  addiction after hearing arguments the trial court found that evidence of defendant's drug addiction do not fit any exception for other crimes evidence would be prejudicial and that is charge permitted access was not the same as  impossible or improbable without the souther crimes evidence a fact finding process would be shortchanged because the jury would be limited to considering a sterile environment of what happened within a few hours on may seven his history of knowledge of the effects of opiates is years of experience with the pain reliever that makes one dro meant handing it to him however the charges brought because he acts in many to permit access to him i don't know exactly and i'm assuming all the evidence is probably going to be circumstantial only t when in fact the books kept on his person at all times that's in evidence and he also how do we know that the prosecutor represented that at the motion without the seven some of his conduct in gauge him by him would be impossible or perhaps even inexplicable for example because of his addiction he carried the drug honest person and it was not in the medicine cabinet whether he's purchased and his wife had inexplicable without the other crimes evidence the state would have been unable to provide any theory as to why defend its happy's total strangers i think is similar to this case the state steering is that because of his rooted in the carter case defendant's prior conduct and court a few years of court affairs concerning his treatment of the things with whom he had five children furnished the backstory that made the immediate evidence of the prescription on one day and a baby dies next day i mean there is no no story the back story or that setting the stage for the crime is excluded this is also maintained that in just in addition to the continuing narrative exception this evidence was in this appeal to prove the knowledge or absence of an innocent frame of mind that's going to work its will from the state's theory was that the defendant knowing the properties of their own would have proved that defendant permitted axis access to this drug whether he put the drug in the baby bottle and give the bottle to the baby whether he put the drugs on the coffee table and let the baby out of the highchair there's no evidence but somehow that perspective i believe that it's not even and or as a second matter i think the court needs to keep in mind what this day this asking this court to do which is to address a forfeited instance didn't have the opportunity to address that particular aspect of what the state is now arguing that it's a continuing hearing i'll get to whether or not it's continuing narrative in a moment but from that perspective this is absolutely horrific and this church should variations on this theme but they all have the same problem so on the merits continuing narrative the theory behind it is that it has to be able to explain the discovery and there was no evidence of that so the state where i was there the evidence for which the state could argue that a trial if there's evidence they probably could but from this perspective apparently they don't have that evidence even though you have the trial yet so we don't know i mean i was the parent was he the one who was the custodian of the baby question when she died it would be the western but it still doesn't hit the relevant fact for purposes of the the charge is that if that's the state's theory then it doesn't matter he's an addict or not what matters is he someone stance what someone is is not relevant evidence for purposes of continuing here the the evidence is always what somebody did what action somebody took it's never just what they are  they want to introduce the evidence that he's a drug addict in order to dump the rest of it which is his knowledge that's the problem is his after his drug addiction does not demonstrate anything about so i would judgment of a person uses attention someone pays to the situation they're in or that they might be mobile in terms of whether under the state's theory you might have minister do it because sacked less for careless or worse for the press and you never change those then how you are your state at that moment and the twenty four hours before the forty eight hours before something has affected that if something has helped you one way or another or possibly influenced you that's because the problem is is the paucity of evidence we've been given here all we know from this record is that he has an addiction he was first tried suboxone and a few weeks later i doubt that they discovered that the child died from this particular girl we don't know how she got it with this particular motion and with ruled on before we know narrowly sure we don't know what there was up with and that's actually one of the problems here it's a motion in limine that the state could produce some other evidence that make that profit the state could come back on with additional evidence and then ask the court to review to removing it renew it and reconsider it that's not to it's still an option for the state the problem is what they're trying to do based upon what gluten they've given us here it's not relevant because they haven't connected his addiction to the facts that led to the child's step they don't know what if anything he did and all the cases i'm continuing narrative or any of the other exceptions the mode of absence of the state there still has to be some action that mr stevenson took that's relevant to how his child die in much the same way if we took anybody in this room we didn't have the surgery  we have a prescription for percocet recover sets or whatever we got isn't necessary for that or the jury to know that we had knee surgery in order to know that we have these drugs and if we just drop the pill or something it doesn't need to be explained why he has the drug what needs to be explained is that he knows what the drug is and its effects which you can do without telling anyone even act is addiction isn't relevant to his knowledge as to what that drug  fiction that's the problem had it the day before everyone agrees on that that and the the circumstances surrounding the child's death the problem is that the state is trying to introduce the fact of his action to explain everything that happened after that when they don't have an explanation for what actually happened start with if they if they were able to produce evidence of what happened then that addiction may or may not be relevant we don't know but what we have right now is he had a prescription for some box on the head of the day before and at some point three weeks later they discovered the child died from the suboxone but we don't know how it happened so from that perspective the addiction and all the his circumstances surrounding why the judge is not relevant because it doesn't matter because it doesn't prove it it doesn't hire him how the child died which is really what we're doing it doesn't prove how that child was placed in proximity to or had access to the drug the back of his addiction does not explain the elements of the offense as charged and i think when when they were talking about when the judge was allegedly limiting the definition that's not in my opinion what he was doing  in the context of what they were talking about the judge was trying to explain what the problem is with their charge in relationship to what they're trying to introduce if their theory is that he actually gave this child the drug then in danger and really is a necessarily true if the case on trial is how this child died then adding the fact that this man is an addict just shakes the whole thing with a negative connotation to say isn't relevant and frankly he doesn't deserve because it's not necessarily they haven't demonstrated how is it protection is relevant to help a child die that's the problem and that's why it's so prejudicial since they can't prove exactly what happened you're going to throw in a status problem as opposed to an action for what i said every case i read to you that deals with this exception the defendant has taken some action he's done something he has not just banned something he's done something any relevance to the actions he takes it has a relevance to why he has the drug but it's not you don't know you don't know why he has the growth in order to understand if you what they've got so far what the state needs to do this filling that middle part and we'd also argue that the addiction explains how he knew the properties of the drug and it's directly related to the mental state the state was trying to prove his use of the drug over years to the extent that he used drugs shows his extensive