on his twenty first birthday in that some of his probationary conditions need to be stricken as a result there's only a couple of issues that we're here to discuss today and i'd like to begin by discussing the one fifteen ten mark as we know before one fifteen ten statement can be admitted the state must establish that there are sufficient safeguards of reliability in other words there must be a particular allies guarantee of trustworthiness we also know pursuit of this course decision people but the state must also affirmatively establish the content of previous interviews that demonstrate that prior to demonstrate the prior interviews did not compromise the reliability of the proper statements and with those guidelines and might like to talk about the fact of this case she's briefly we have an initial statement that was allegedly given by katie in this case to his stepsister the stepsister went and got k b s mother until a in depth interview or what seems like an in depth interview by katie's mother last between thirty and forty minutes part of it took place while the stepsister was present part of it took place while the mom was there in there by herself and part of it took place while the mom was there with her husband she left that discussion with katie with an understanding that at some point on the night of the horses there for her wedding about two weeks prior o driven k b e behind a building and parked and while they were parked over untouched katie's private park performed an act of war sights on k p and perform an act of anal sex and then at some point during this discussion that change there was an act of anal sex it was only attempted and then at some point that changed there was an attempted act of anal sex that happened on some prior day at katie's grandmother's house though it's also significant about this says as the is going in to talk to katie about this allegation she knows that o m had been accused of committing or of been properly touching another person he was not adjudicated delinquent that he was found not guilty that offense but she still carries that and questioning her son for a minimum of thirty to forty minutes was her testimony the state wholly failed to show the content of that discussion what question she asked of him how she got this information from him and failed to demonstrate that that information was willed liable given this information that she carried in here knowing that owen had been accused of doing so a somewhat thank you another trial the state didn't even try to it then you have about two or three days later katie was taken to a police station and spoke with an officer of the police station and a story changed again at the police station he doesn't say anything about going behind a building in parking were these things about that is in the state agrees that some of the questions that only uses are were quite a few questionable and uses to get this information al were leading questions questions that essentially suggest that the answer to katie one of them and then what did he do with your private parts or what did you do with your private area they had to work for it and katie said well you placed it in his mouth at that point you have these kind of leading questions pulling these answers out of katie and again the state has agreed that they were leading so i look at all this in tandem with the other factors assumptions discusses you know you have whether the statement was spontaneous we only have one spontaneous statement here and the factor is whether the st and consistent with other statements the only spontaneous statement we have is the one he made to his stepsister that is wholly inconsistent with any other statement you provided anyone else we also fact there was a two week the way in between when the was no motive to fabricate per se any of these allegations against i went on there had been an allegation that katie had made about being improperly touched by at least one of the people maybe two or three including atlanta it would out of the ordinary for an eight year old to get this next missed up mixed up with who did what when where it was done and how it's done so there are serious reliability problems with the entirety of the state's  he performed an act of anal sex on me when he couldn't remember he took his clothes off or not now again the other reason that this is so important is when we get to the adjudication and the judge is considering an issue of credibility he has testimony which again is contrary to much of what he said during these one hundred ten statements wind up against owens testimony and the testimony of owens mother owen testified that none of this happened but dinner was they travel it took them about ninety seconds to get from point a to point b point owen at the time had a broken left hand so he's driving with his right hand this is this testimony at least in the transcript him off as incredibly or as very credible but the court relied on the one fifteen have the necessity of a credibility determination between an eight year old who says he doesn't really remember some things about this a legit occurrence and the testimony and owens mother both can testify that that this didn't the raptor it demonstrates that his adjudication really stands on improperly admitted evidence that should have never been considered by the finder about it so we're arguing that his adjudication for count two should be vacated  but some of the arguments that are present the brief should still be considered regarding the probation conditions albeit that these are things that the court may consider below again during the resending proceeding because it really of two things one the interest of judicial economy it makes sense for this court to consider those arguments so that they are not going to be repeated again once this case is remanded but sue as i note in the brief owen was sentenced using a sensing order that was generally reserve for adult sex offenders a sensing order that wasn't tabled towards juveniles and we know there are different considerations that come into play when you're sensing a juvenile and when you're sensing and all so for those reasons i'd like to briefly discuss some of the part of my concern is i don't know if this is a standard sentencing porn that they're using for juvenile offenders and for no you count me if it is it is something that at least in my penis should be addressed to make sure that when this case goes back down the correct sensing order is used or at least if this sensing order is used again there are modifications to it superfly act that your sentencing a juvenile here and not sense in adult and with the considerations for those two groups being so there were no and that's why they're being raised as play there in this case because many of the arguments you know sentencing for juveniles is governed by this idea that they must relate to the nature of the offense and the rehabilitation of the minor and under the first prominent players there's really no closeness of evidence here because many of the probation conditions have nothing to do with those two things the court doesn't make any findings with a lot of these arguments regarding why it sensing the defendant to these things why these things are necessary for instance the prohibition on the defendant's access to the internet you know this is a juvenile who is go looking for a job at some point children nowadays are linked by social media what you don't want to do is take this child this this juvenile essentially put a scarlet a on him and say no you know treat him like a leper and put him away and say no you can't associate with kids your same age you can't communicate with them you can't you know apply for a job on the internet because those things remove them from society and don't do anything proceedings when they got to the portion where the judge is going to be sensing and he actually paused the proceedings and asked for i don't remember the exact terminology he asked for it was like an adult sex offender probation former sex offender probation or something like that but his verbiage makes me think that it's not common place maybe in three million county for them to send juveniles to juvenile specific sex offender probation and i want to make sure that that same access to the internet and there's no mental state required so badly and subject to him innocently violating that condition and therefore having his probation revoked based on him committing an act that he has no idea  hy brooke i'm willing to bet that computer might have internet access to it and if it does and he does that he's violated the terms of his probation push no mental state required there's no devious intent required it's almost a strict liability offense the same thing can be said first possession of a cellular telephone even though this offense like the internet provision had nothing to do with that he wasn't looking at you know pictures of k b on the internet he wasn't looking at pornography on the internet similarly he wasn't using a video phone or taking still images using a cellular phone in this case it has nothing to do with the nature of the offense for which he has been sons but there are other i guess maybe more interesting arguments in this case  the state has agreed that that count needs to be vacated so as a result there is no current ballot sentence in this case because the court explicitly said it is not in recent years on count so you're saying we should be providing guidance to the trial or juvenile to an adult sex offender probation to a provision that really many of them had nothing to do with rehabilitating him or protecting the public things that had absolutely nothing to do with his offense and i want to ensure that this is not something that regularly happens in the mining town because if it is when this court sense that the case back down it's the same thing or similar thing is going to happen again and you're going to him access to minors i don't even know what that means and maybe that's a part by hesitancy to just have a sport send it back down without any direction i've done this  six other record said he said that the officer used proper questioning in his interviewing of the child so hit the accusation that the he was being led down the accused the responded is simply not but borne out by the testimony or by the tape recording of the that conversation between the child and the officer and if you look at that tape the happened and the state was either largely unintelligible the tape or the officer was trying to clarify exactly what the child said he'd never asked what you do with your private parts until after a statement was made that something happened and he was just clarifying what it was that the child reporting at that time that is not sex he with the officer he added the if i recall correctly he did add the allegation as to the oral sex but the timeframe for the allegations as to what happened with the respondent remains the same it all happened on the night of the rehearsal dinner as they were returning to the rehearsal dinner while they were parked near the rehearsal dinner here were the animals were located and the description of the park where the place she was parked was very consistent was very pointed to exactly the exact same spot basically so that the we're not having a very best difference in accusations as to what happened you know there's there's not a i can't think of you know there's not an accusation you and responder's complained about the use of the statement a trial that because of the big difference in the victim's testimony at trial the case was clear that you cannot use the if the court was wrong as far as it is what fifteen ten reliability determinations the child's performance of the trial is the precise reason the legislature adopted one fifteen ten they wanted to avoid the situation where you have a child who is made reports of a sex offense then gets to trial and is unable to testify fully as to what happened or as is this case cannot remember some of the details or that kind of thing that the that they still have the evidence available to preserves that was the exact reverse of what fifteen ten i submit that the truck were the terminations in this regard was not an abuse of discretion should not be disturbed by the scores with regard to the respondent challenges to the conditions of probation none of the read in the it is not unreasonable for the trial court to be put them on a juvenile there is no evidence presented to the trial court and none presented to this court even that says that these can types of conditions o probation are appropriate only for adults but not for showed the two articles responding relies upon his brief regarding saying hey you can't put these put the restrictions simply stated that one was an article refers to thin if he says that juveniles should not be included in sexual offenses registries had nothing to do with the issue here the about these type of restrictions i think that the trial court use of them was reasonable they have been approved by the especially of proved by the legislature for use with sex offenders as being appropriate for conditions are not directly related to the respondents conduct prison offense itself it is related to the respondent and to his rehabilitation there is a sexual offenders evaluation that was done when he played basketball in playground of the sixteen year old based on the probation provision was indicated that was advantage of an eight year old well being of the night at space that one probably nothing as far as the relationships one that that could probably be better phrased or  tailored apply if this if that was restricted from playing sports at school competitive sports because he might be on a team with people he might be sixteen or seventeen and somebody on the should not address until we actually have an actual controversy for new where the product has had the opportunity to ok let's flesh out these terms so that they more directly apply but it enry duck i was just referring to t ms regarding internet limitations and i kind of think that that is and can be related to the this responded and his rehabilitation if you look at his evaluation it indicates that he's had i believe ten under eight sexual encounters and met one at least one of his partners through the internet and the evaluation also said that he should have absolutely no contact with pornography through any kind of media d v d video of self or of the likes of the restrictions regarding computer software and that is related to  these particular specials are appropriate for this particular respon book just as a no your honour's on page eight or sixteen seventeen eighteen going on to the top of page one thousand of the reply brief i discuss plane air regarding the sensing issues so it has to raise prior to the argument f the cavies statement to boeing what the state didn't talk about was its complete failure to in any way establish that k b s mother didn't influence the statement that he ultimately gave to her and to officer bolden that is a a full load that we have here in this case the trial trucker didn't have that information on what the difference is to me we don't know if she walked into that room and katie gave a narrative answer mom this is what happened to me and she let him talk for three or four minutes if that was the case that might be more reliable than if she renders a big difference in this case because the mom can still come out of that interview with her son and say he told you there was oral sex he told me there was a male se those things were all a product of these leading questions that she asked to him asked of him that she where she pulled that information out of him it's the same information but the way that you come to gather that information is critically important especially in a case like this where you have an eight year old making the allegation and as i believe just as turp pointed out these aren't just a little inconsistency that are floating around here they are analyzing me admissibility but what if you intensity and there is a precedent the back of that that that argument but the problem is when the court was making its credibility determination it didn't say based bolen statement his stepsisters cave these various statements and based on all of those statements found that katie was credible with our knowing how those statements originated without the sink even attempt prove that katie's mother didn't influence those statements in some way contrary to this encounters one of which came about the the internet how did that evidence come in it was in a