go counsel on charles please approach are for purposes of impeachment so what we have left to talk about is whether the state sufficiently proved beyond a reasonable doubt that mr charles had a firearm and whether the admission of the boy conviction was harmless as to the sufficiency argument the object for a few moments and he pointed it at her she how did she get her into the car if he doesn't have a gun for the morning which is waiting for the bus to go to be able to go downtown to go to work how does he get her in the car without a gun she subjective the testimony of a single eyewitness that the defendant had a gun yes there are number of cases while there are cases where there the court has said that they've relied on one witness but in the most of those cases there are more than one he says where you can't just assume that a powder is a controlled substance you have to prove that it actually is the fault substance because there is a technical definition and the reason we have this technical definition is they didn't describe it sufficiently to meet the definition and so i would argue that toy is probably a side they illinois supreme court recently decided that he's right which i think should help in this case arm plus there was another way this was also identified as a nine millimeter pistol so in that scenario there's much more specific information about the firearm we have here all we have here is that it was that these technical definition of the legislatures and sounds like you're arguing for a foundational requirement that might be something appropriate for an expert but if you're talking about it woman who has a gun pointed at her and  you know that is assault and there has to be a foundation for the f b i and he had a gun and i saw the barrel well i think when you have the stiff penalties that are connected with proving a firearm then yes you have to have to prior weapons conviction charge of a conviction and you think that you know the state had not been able to characterize jury's mind and say that well that's why they convicted him because they asked for that when i was the last thing they asked for before they convict him so so what if it was the first time that still an even more dramatic we have is it's black and she looked at the barrel right is there anything else though here we are now in right and in washington the supreme court has held that a single eyewitness testimony that describ because the defendant testified he said i didn't have a gun she got into my car when i asked her she says he pointed the gun at me you're going to so it's a credibility determination right  not disagreeing with this is mason that there's a question of credibility between what she said and you're saying there's other testimony to substantiate that and what he said was i don't have a gun at all so that you'll agree more credible than the defen anything but a room they just said that i didn't have a gun they did not say that it was fake or a b b gun or it was a toy about it they had their defense has like there was no come there was no god but now this is a new defense theory that never was raised below th decide whether they believed the victim who said he had a gun or the defendant who said he didn't hear and the state introduces his prior a new job you conviction white sout jury asking for that one piece of evidence the defense of the defendant was convicted the people can speculate that maybe the jury wanted to be told we don't know we absolutely have no idea why they asked for it and  if there was something else you mentioned that that because he's done it in the past he could have done it now the state never mentioned that throughout the trial that because he had done that a crime in so you now have a board of initio conviction being introduced at the defendant's trial and lo and behold the jury says can we see them point conviction  is in conclusion taking all these factors into consideration the people as this court go from defendants conviction question just briefly your honor and so the issue in this case is really comes down to whether the evidence was sufficient regarding whether mr charles had a firearm and  like the defendant is arguing the at the victim has to have some rudimentary knowledge of firearms and to be able to say whether some of the automatic automatic whether it's a pistole or luger you have to be able to specifically identify the particular weapon in order to sustain the state's burden of proof and i don't think i've ever seen an appellate court or a supreme court case  that that's correct there's no case citing i thought we do have the statute which has a specific definition of firearm and there are other ways if the definition of  argument a lot of was that he did not have a gun but that the burden is still on the state to prove that he had a firearm and but you did you get your net contesting that there was rather the issue it's court they were instructed properly that should be used for pietschmann but still the court found error because the prior convictions were so similar to the issues that in the case and like here we have a priory w conviction and the central issue is did he have a firearm and it's likely that the jury thought that because he previously had a fire he had it again was was the jury told any other information about their earlier use of the weapon that he was out at four in the morning looking for his future girlfriend and have never got out of them and i think like they have now that you know he was they were just told that he had a prior conviction what's the word just in this case is that that was constitutional the constitutional conduct that it was it should not have been admitted at all where i said the prior convictions and mccoy and