evidence that johnson had a prior conviction for robbery and testimony that he told the complainant that he had just gotten jail but counsel that conviction was admitted only after the trial court ascertained that  the montgomery criteria and as well conducting a balancing test isn't that correct it is correct and we maintain that even conducting the balancing test and looking at the evidence as a whole that ultimately was an abuse  discretion because the present is still a back out wait it's probative value and the problem's value had to do with the fact that it was in fact a he said she said situation the credibility of the witnesses the witness told to the jury that he is a convicted felon automatically inherently we have these biases that tulle the jury that you know maybe we just shouldn't believe this person and then when we get to the facts of this  whether that is outweighed by the prejudicial effect and i think if you look at the case and the evidence that was presented the testimony story that was presented if you have a article has the story of she goes out one night and strength in the struggl hanging out and she says she wakes up and she finds that and a friend of his committing sexual acts against her and then you have the defendant's version of the story which is entirely consistent with both physical evidence and with human nature saying that you know we hung out and then at some point some people left a r and i we got along we hit it off and in the morning while he was hocking we decided to have consensual sex with it seems like you're complainant she was the one who had problems in her testimony there was nothing about it physical evidence didn't add up even some of the fight human nature in the sense that you know she says she wakes up this is happening to her that she goes back to sleep and then she wakes up she asked the defendant can you help me find my phone can you give me a ride home for this all to almost details are to be paid by the fact finders net correct credit here this robbery conviction was very different than the charge which the defendant faced is now correct yes and the trial court did not allow any details with respect to a conviction it was barebones defendant testified and then a certified copy was admitted after that circumstances i guess it's hard to see where the prejudice one outweighs the probative value and again as justice st just talked about beyond saying that where you have a close credibility question a prior conviction that meets montgomery shouldn't be montgomery criteria shouldn't be imo yes that that is the danger of the balancing test but i think if we  you know given the circumstances is all over the place and is not supported by the physical evidence it is not supported by human nature and so what we have is you know the danger that we all have a concern we all have about othe crimes evidence does hearing that someone is a felon does hearing that someone has committed bad acts in the past so prejudice a jury against something that they believe that this sunday might just be a bad person deserving of punishment maybe this defendant has a propensity to commit crimes even if that evidence was not proven these acts are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt which i don't think we can say  really time here you look at the evidence as a whole what was the danger what was the prejudice of this other crimes we knew going in that this was going to be a he said  designed on the record but i think if you ultimately look at what was presenting actually are out ultimately having the statement come in having a certified conviction and then so you have the jury wondering what was he in jail truths yes that that balancing test did occur but i think if we ultimately look at what occurred at trial and how not even close the testimony was i don't think there were any problems that inconsistency is in the time since testimony and then you have the power a r s testimony that balancing test that while at the time seemed ok when it happened ultimately proved to be in a person we don't really know what happened but we know that the complaint inspiration doesn't make a lot of sense erm check the major portions of it but there is something something wrong that is nagging at us and maybe we can come back with convictions and some of these offenses and maybe it's because we know that he is a felon we know that he commits crimes that is that human danger that is what we are concerned about and ultimately it became an abuse of discretion when the charge allowed this inciden that it did take the defendant's youth into account the cases that i think are discussed really have to do with defendants to their defective life sentences and actually were quite a bit younger  should why should we be looking to those cases to inform a decision here when the defendant was not within every training which did not have a defect or a life sentence terms of considering just usefulness and mitigation maturity that because the court did not consider it before she did not think she was supposed to and then considered it later that is just evidence let me be she did not co jury wasn't practiced structed to that effect it was a crime of dishonesty it was a crime it was a felony it falls squarely in the like andrea the rules of evidence and in fact if it becomes a close credibility contest state has absolutely every right to impeach the defendant once he takes the stand and has to be ruled before trial well which it was and so the defendant taking the stand knew that that would come in and can believe that in his decision  mentioned again other than you know the court did instruct that it could go slowly to the believe ability i also think the fact that it's a robbery actually takes away from the effect of using it towards propensity because these are sexual offenses  not robbery and so that actually makes it less prejudicial in that sense is that the only thing as to be ours credibility she also testified about some things she had done bringing marijuana to the party things like that her credibility is being assessed as well i assume if she had a conviction that would have been used to teach her as well it didn't it didn't come up in that way there was no evidence to support  speculate exactly what the jury was assuming i think they were following the evidence when they decided which convictions she didn't pull which ones to my guilty and not guilty partly i would imagine the medical evidence helped play into that because there was some of these abrasions and eventually area and other than the victim she testified very clearly she was pretty honest about well he tried to get it here and try to put it in on so that you can take that into account but to see that somehow because credibility is this important thing only the victim or the witnesses can be a peach and we can't impeach the defendant that that st of all that goes against really all or even a bad actor actually getting out of jail i suppose it is a good idea but you you know so i don't even know that you go through that analysis i do know obviously either way you're going to look at whether that i agree you are a very young man so he did say that once in illinois a person turns eighteen that in the church or the development of the latest science an evidence based it's not an argument recognized under illinois law this point have you been but it has to be very fact specific and it has to be as a lie what's happening now is they're trying to elevate this essentially constitutional argument into an abuse of discretion standard for twenty one year old who got an eleven year sentence which is not even serve the whole at one hundred percent on and i don't think that's any of the cases support that and even if you look at the newer statutes i didn't history he was in fact time for vacation and every time he had been out of jail for three weeks at the time he committed this he then also committed other offenses which are pending out of capital county which the court would have been aware but most importantly i record you're not at the point where we're talking about a de facto life i don't know that it even in these cases don't support a twenty one year old with an eleven year sentence being looked at specifically for their him i think both parties are very clear that what was happening that night was everyone was hanging out together and just chatting and talking so that would have been something that the complainant heard at any point that evening it didn't necessarily have to  in that context and i think the rest of her testimony shows a lot of inconsistent it makes us who parts of her the money frankly were hard to believe she said that she compartment didn't tell her she was leaving but she also told the detective that yes he did and she told jake of that she'd be fine and she was planning on staying over she said that the friend and the hell she was also such leave help him her and the evidence the physical evidence just did not corroborate that so there are a lot of things th worry is not another sexual assault doesn't mean that it's also not generally prejudicial so all in all i think if you look at evidence if you look at the two versions that were presented to the jury and then we look at the pre