erred by instructing the jury you could consider those convictions as substantive evidence of guilt both of these rulings were rodimus they were contrary to well established only case law and the defendants  defense the evidence the trial showed that one answer bunches and two other individuals that gathered together in a private residence that it consumes large quantities of alcohol over an extended period of there and then ensued a physical scroll goal ultimately the defendant was able to gain possession of the knife and testifying that he feared for his life and also testifying he was attempting to defend himself against the defendant has positioned well regardless based on the defendant's testimony the judge did instruct the jury on both the perfect self defense and the under reasonable belief in self defense second degree murder admitted that he had prior convictions one for violation of an order protection in two for aggravated battery well after the defendant testified the state asked the judge to introduce into  issue of lawful justification of the defense of before resting he had introduced evidence of spent months violent character and threats in a prior occasion to take the defendant life defense argued that those of violent history prior threats by victim could be considered by the jury as substantive evidence of guilt but not the defendant's prior convictions and defense also defense can introduce evidence of the victim's prior convictions for violent history and back and be considered substantively by the jury but the state may not introduce evidence of came in and the jury was properly instructed he could consider that assault to develop the problem is bringing in the the defendant's product convictions for the for the same exact purpose how the s on brings forth evidence that he himself is a peaceful character that that kind of opens the door to the states and issues of defendant's violent character or prior convictions to be testifying on his own behalf and by remaining silent as to his own character the defendant implicitly was convened to the jury that he had a peaceful here or not i'm not quite did the defendant should not of gain and the relief defensiveness of those arguments should be rejected as well one of the state's arguments is that it's really the defendant's fault because the defendant asked the pile on even more prior convictions that increases the risk of prejudice of course is low recognizes the serious risk of prejudice when a defendant has a prior convictions and those come before the jury and further convictions coming for the state also argues if you look at all the evidence in the case it was overwhelming that it wasn't self defense that there was conflicting testimony on the other unit it's important to know that the jury here when the case was given to the jury to an argument that this court should overturn this decision and people versus harris and rule the only ever the defendant raises the point of self defense the state should be allowed to introduce herself into purposes the defendant's  brief recess then returned to the court room and said that he had consulted life expectancy tables and determined that was for survivors as if thirty three years left to live and on that basis he impose he weighed he appropriate factors that religion must do have sentencing but his comments reveal that he put great credence into these life expectancy tables and imposed thirty in the context of the comments that he's made in other cases in which he has sent his defendants for first degree murder it appears that this judge has in predisposition to impose life sentences and murder cases this was worse argued before you introduced in the people can also introduce evidence of the dependence by law here so we acknowledge that it was a misreading of those but at least here is case lynch deals with the victims not with the defendant witnesses the medical examiner the defendant through the other witnesses in particular and they deliberated over a period of two days so this shows that it was harmless to have it or these other convictions in because other reason to it doesn't matter when they tip the balance does it if the jury thinks about something for two or three days and those additional convictions still are the things that get the balance then they're still also at the same is there is are all born with this home surface of weapons that look like they could have been involved in all of their kitchen knives is true there were in the house but knives and a knife blade and you're talking about how this is harmless that the evidence is overwhelming but it was long clear to me what the evidence was showing and  in they didn't see any attack by the victim before this they didn't specifically see what weapon did this but no one else was attacking him by any other it is it him of no one else back to him but the defen is just another layer of evidence showing that he committed the crime that he just shot which shows that he had the weapons because he admitted that he killed would he say no i did it in self defense because he grabbed me room the thr that they did not object to the jury instruction requested by defendant which was pattern jury instruction from point a team the prosecutor asked to him three point thirteen modified but only if the trial judge first granted their request to more of defendant's conditions no instruction three point thirteen states quote evidence of defense previous conviction of an offense may be considered by you only as it may affect his believability as a witness and must not be considered b evidence of his guilt of the fence with which he is charged so the defendant clearly one of three point thirteen is a limiting instruction regarding the convictions he had already fronted you know after defense counsel requested three point thirteen the trial judge not the prosecutor suggested that only twelve x would be the more appropriate instruction to give and modify based on the evidence and the argument that prosecutor had made regarding three point thirteen no committee knows for instruction three point wel a quote if this instruction immediately following either instruction three point twelve or three point thirteen or both those because defense counsel requested three point look thirteen and one of three point thirteen to be given without modification that's where we put it on pages twenty two and twenty three of the discussion about those your instructions three point twelve x then had to be given and to the victim you got three point thirteen you have to give up three point twelve x which is a victim's instruction in the better jury instructions and ultimately if you read through that entire discussion about the jury instructions it was defense counsel less in that three points it was modified to reduce the burden to say that the victim made threats of violence and that's not one of the choices that are given under the pattern jury instruction so if you only have threats as opposed to by her prior conviction of crime or prior violence to the different the which is where the instruction actually came in than defendant had a better chance of proving his case under that modification there was nothing about the instruction that made it evidence here that the trial judge in particular felt that it should be modified and given as to defendant also i don't know the rationale behind it because the judge did not elaborate on his thinking behind that so we don't have any anything from the record that i would like because they've become you know i'm sorry i mean i know i have the original version i don't have the the one that was in the in the trial record apolo back you don't have no idea i don't i'm sorry i  of that the trial judge did properly consider the the sense factors and other considerations allowed by controlling authority in the sevens the defendant to a term of incarceration it is well within the allowable sentencing range for first degree murder just defended a thirty three year sentence because the judge believed to be in effect a life sentence in our own brief on pages thirty three thirty one people quoted the judge's comments prior to sentencing which show that he considered all the proper factors so clearly look at life expectancy tables that i've never seen any authority that that's of course someone doing that and i don't think he did it as i said to make sure that he died in prison because he certainly would have done for our sons he's simply want get up to six years to give him the full sixty free man i think when you put it that way what you're basically saying is you know look your you can spend the rest of your life in prison and after all what's the purpose in the first place a hidden looking of life expectancy tables this is a what  instruction was improper but the when all came out of course the only reason the convictions were plumbing in was pursuant to the judge's thought that this instruction should also apply to these