the first two issues we've raised in our brief really essential your you prowl around the issues of prosecutorial misconduct with respect to the first issue there was a misstatement of facts by the press accuser when the prosecutor took advantage of the trial court's ruling on the state's motion in limine be to present to the jury a misleading portrait of the facts surrounding the defendant's traffic stop and subsequent arrest did do the scene so what the it was the first part of the video they threw the audio all up into the point when the defendant was placed in officer no house and squad car they then allowed officer dilke to testify they didn't play the audio they didn't play the audio banking that happened inside officer milhouse the squad car they played  testify that when he was told that the car would be searched that the defendant asked officer dillon why you searching my car if i have insurance and i don't want you searching my car big didn't allow any effects you can hear officer mulhouse talking to the two passengers in the car who seem incredibly intoxicated at the time and they were kind of laughing and joking there is it also an audio of separate audio between officer mehl house and the defendant claims asking what's going on and the officer responded and given him miranda warnings and the defendant expresses surprise and indignation and very upset and also mentions at the end of their conversation you know this is not even my car this is my mom's car my been guilty of anything if it's not my car and i don't have anything saw everything but they didn't hear well they did not see anything after the officer after officer mousetrap the big sound to the to the east quieter this conversation between officer milhouse and the defendant took place after they had a point so they did not even see the officer mehl house was speaking to the defendant and certainly didn't hear what officer in the house was speaking to saying to the defendant or what the defender was saying to him and the state present i think it was misleading actually in two ways first of all the prosecutor continuously focused on the fact that the defendant said this was his car he was in control o r control to get in and out of the carriage he couldn't control where the car away and he wasn't possession of everything that was in the car and then said when the defendant to the search what did that mean that man that he knew he knew that these drugs are going to find a tire that was why he was objecting to the search well i think that's misleading because as when you look at the entire transaction from the time he was stopped until the time the car was removed from the scene that isn't all he said he said i mean to be blunt you know he said what the fuck is going on and that's not my shit he was very very indignant  about i can't believe you found that in my truck and the jury was led to believe they didn't say anything on the subject from the way it was presented i think it's in this respect it's similar to people who we are which is an older case but it was one where the the neighbor of mrs weaver was allowed to say that she came to the house in the middle of the night she was in a panic she said there were her house was on fire there were two armed intruders in the house she wasn't allowed to say which she had said to the neighbor these two armed intruders shot my husband already give a description and the supreme court said you know that's misleading because that led the jury to believe that on this subject nothing else was  conversations with officer didn't to be played because the judge thought it would be too hard to take the one comment that it was he is carrying kept saying why are you searching my car the judge thought to be too hard to statements between officer mel house and the defendant on a separate track on the video so they were they were recording statements and defense counsel asked essentially that they all be played if you're going to play part of it you should play all of it so the state ma a motion initially to not put an end track but to just allow the testimony of officer do the right ok so is this about you know how the state presents the case in which they have some discretion or  of what had happened at the time of the defendant's stop and arrest and it could be a you know could either be considered as one comprehensive transaction which would bring it under the common law ru or if you want to treat it i suppose you could treat it as there's a conversation between the defendant and officer mehl house there was a conversation between officer dale and the defendant and there was another conversation between officer house and the defendant but under eleanor rule of evidence one o six you can introduce even if you consider these as three separate conversations i don't think that's appropriate i think it's more like this court's decision and people the boeing am there were three separate conversations a week apart and those were treated as one comprehend a week apart he did as one comprehensive conversation about the same subject matter because it covered the same subject matter what  no that was part of what he had said to officer no house in the final conversation the defense counsel did try to ask him to leave his office or my own house if he had run the goes i think to the second issue the misstatement of the law the prosecutor kept insisting that the only thing that was relevant was he identified this vehicle as his car and then went on during closing argument to say pretty much wrote out the idea of no mean possession of the drugs or intention to exercise control over drugs and told the jury both in the opening and the rebuttal closing arguments this is a case where the defen  a situation where the prosecutors trying to say knowingly he relates to was he unknowing possession of and control over the car so and you know he was disputing the edge was driving the carrier that he was in control of the car so i think it's a misleading to the jury because they're led to believe all we have to decide is was in knowing possession and knowing control of the car and once we fin counsel did that object to the closing arguments with respect to that she did preserve the issue with respect to the completeness doctrine and room one zero six she didn't preserve the issue didn't object statements of the law that we've asked that this court consider and under the plane air doctrine and i think we can say that this was a closely balance his even without regard to the statements that we think should have been included under the completeness traction for one of the most important things is these drugs these two packets of drugs small packets a big piece of drugs were found in locations that were accessible to the passengers in the care one of  was found through the front passenger seat the other one was found in the center console of the car with the real passenger being pretty much directly behind the center console no indication the defendant ever looked in the center console it's also a little crude to me that it's a little strange if you're in possession of two bags of cocaine as a driver but you can keep one under front passenger seat and one in the console it is doesn't seem like an appropriate way for someone in possession of drugs to be throwing them tossing them around the car for what the jury saw didn't know that there were two passengers in the car correct they knew there were two passengers and they probably heard back from the testimony of good i mean to argue that they weren't his drugs i am that there were two passengers in the car that the officers didn't investigate they let them leave the video shows there was a period of about two minutes when mr harkness was back by officer mehl house this car nobody was was near the defendant's car or the car he was driving and the windows were tinted so there was a period certainly one of these two passengers  disposed of the drugs there i think is also relevant that no drugs were found on the defendant there's no indication he was under the influence of anything these two passengers in texas kate it was pretty clear they were intoxicated but no indication that he was under the influence and he certainly didn't make any express admissions of knowledge which was back in the first issue far from it he made all these adamant denials of guil and it happened at the same time to the same officers covered the same subject matter so the jury didn't really get a complete picture of this at all our position there he didn't get a fair trial because of the timing because they were separate statements because they didn't relate to the same subject matter they didn't relate to the same subject matter and they were nearly contemporaneous in time they were just made to separate officers who were really really to say or subject their point is he says his having him talk to a different police officer and we consider them as one entity can the defendants excuse me i'm going to keep talking to there will be there are so that this is one continuous conversation that could occur in this case over the course that we found that the pre arrest and post arrest statements were distinct pre arrest statements being made to officer milhouse or otherwise clarify the statement that was elicited in this case the defendant denying that he had drugs that's be actually offered that the videotape statement or video recorded conversation would have been offered by the state for the remainder of the come in the fact that the judge in this case decided that it would be too confusing and a distinction as this court did i don't think it's in dispute that the prosecutor officially did a knowledge of the state at all times has the burden of proving knowing that should he then attempted to explain the law of constructive fact defense counsel responded to her in her argument picking up on that very same term same the prosecutor had laid out the ways in which the state had not that the jury reached this guilty verdict based upon the comments by the prosecutor wanted to give me and both the all of the video up to the point were officer dillon spoke to the defendant and wanted to get in the conversation between officer dale and and the defendant the statement was the judge who said i think it's going to be too confusing to put the whole statement in because you can't pull out the one statement you want to introduce which was where he said that's my car i don't want you searching my car so it written down and was not recorded if it was only an oral statement that the officer heard from the defendant or made to the defendant we would have and britain or recorded statement to introduce in one of the six also allows for statements that were made at different times if you want to consider this is three separate conversations i don't think it's really appropriate to consider this is three separate conversations because it's all part of the same traffic stop in the stop and the state is presenting it to the jury has this is all the defendant said on the subject why did he have jacked what was he doing he was objecting because he knew the drugs were in there while the subsequent statements he made under even the common law sick showing that he's not necessarily implicitly admitting his guilt he's saying i don't know anything about these so i think it's necessary even under the common law completeness doctrine to and then the prosecutor says i want to see evidence he's concerned about somebody searching his truck if you're not breaking the law where you concerned about someone searching your truck why are you concerned what would you be concerned why would you be concerned if no fear is going to go through your vehicle and then down to the last sentence so what we have is the defendant in charge of his own vehicle with cocaine in the x the evidence and and you're saying if i mean he still be a part of that right but if you have the video of him being in motion and this isn't even my car right so that's against the law so he was using the fact in the defendant's control over an area as proof to his now ridge the presence of the weapon i think that's exactly what we have here in the prosecutor's argument today thank you very much we will issue a decision into force and we are now going to