from two thousand and eight defendant shot and killed ronald rob without lawful justification and knowing that his conduct was likely to result in mr robson duff in arriving this verdict the jury rejected the defendant's claim of self defense defendant was sentenced the consecutive terms of forty five in two years in prison the two issues are raised on appeal both of them challenge of potential rulings made by the trial  the evidence showed here that the defendant was rescued fairly shortly after the shooting occurred was brought to the police station was placed in an interrogation room you know ultimately he was interrogated by two police  and that was both video and audiotape of what was also video an audiotape was about a twenty minute period of time during which the defendant sat alone in the interrogation room before being questioned by the officers statements to be introduced at trial over defense judge and that statement was and i quote let's just go sit with the fucking niggers and mexicans and shit and just kill one of them in there to what the fuck the state argued and the judge agreed and this statement evidenced the defendant's flippant attitude towards murder and therefore was relevant to his state of mind at the time of the shooting in fairness and moods but the judge was just as we wrap it the statement was completely irrelevant to his state of mind at the time of the shooting furthermore  prejudicial and thus its admission tonight in the fair trial now evidence show that the time he was sitting there in the interrogation room he was slightly under the influence of alcohol because he consumed alcohol for a period of several hours by two officers and he was also still likely under the influence of a traumatic event the shooting that in just he can place in addition the evidence show that when he was arrested he was dragged out of his vehicle by police officers  r the ground taser was used against them in fact ultimately his interrogation had to be cut short because he was taken to the hospital apparently suffering from stress and certainly all of these factors and it's just a stretch to conclude that these statements were somehow rational or the product of cool and home reflection and of the truly indicated he's added to towards a murder he's flip in attitudes towards murder or had anything to do with his mental state at the time of the shooting for the state in its brief characterizes some of these pre injury division statements his rantings and i think that's that's that's probably a good term i don't see how number one again the defendant would submit to the court that the evidence of self defense was closely balanced in this case a serious case of self defense was presented to the jury that the jury had to decide in on this this type of statement obviously portrayed the defendant as a racist as a bigot as a rather on likable and on sympathetic type of character and especially where his credibility was so important to his defense the danger is the jury would simply be put off by the statement and would reject anything that he might have to say no there was no indication in the record that any of the jurors were members of either of these minority groups defendant didn't specifically testify about the state and would appear there what he was saying here really he was giving voice to his fears about what he might encounter either in the county jail awaiting trial or prison but to see that that was relevant to what you know one third at the scene of the shooting i mean those are those are two two totally different things and this guy had no history of violence is  professional hit man so you know killing somebody isn't something that's going to you know to concern him he's just flippant about it care less that's that's not what this is of and showed in be especially because it was so inf i think here the judge had to be i can't say one hundred percent but supreme leap confident as to which relevance because it's was prejudicial well in the end of it's not so relevant to the if it doesn't make a difference but here because self defense to the jury one of those rulings prohibited the defendant from testifying that when he was arrested he told the arresting officers and again please excuse my french but he told the resting officers th shot the victim because the victim had hold a fucking knife now the judge ruled this was an invisible here's a and viewed in a vacuum and that ruling might appear to be correct because it was misstatement but one of the prosecution witnesses one of the resting officers testified in the prosecution's case in chief that when the defendant was arrested the defendant's and he shot the victim because the victim was fucking is w and of course the jury predicated that testimony it would be less likely to accept the defense of self defense in civilian metrically opposed to his claim he shot him because he was threatened with a knife and so here the defendant was simply attempting to help her again what he believed was in misstatement a very important statement by this prosecution witness to the doctoring of curative admissibility the defendant may be allowed to produce otherwise inadmissible evidence to counter in misstatement or misimpression presented during the state's case in chief and that was the reason the defense sought to me it's was the it's true that during cross examination defense counsel a listen from the officer his admission that you were hearing aids and elicited from the officer that the terms of the words wife and knife of course are very similar and therefore it would be possible that what the defendant actually said was referencing the fucking knife as opposed to the what but when the defendant testified the judge the possibility with the officer that he misheard but the dream or the thinking it was even the officers against possible cause are so similar in so the jury might have been thinking along those lines but i would have thought would think that the jury would then expect the defendant to say what he actually said but because they were left with the defendant only being allowed to deny what he had said the danger there is the jury would have thought well ok defense counsel was floating up a balloon as to what he might a possibl said but then the defendant doesn't back it up and then the year goes right out of the blue and i think that's that's the danger and so it was important for the defendant be able to give this testimony again his feet argue to the jury that although the defendant all of in self defense he had not made similar statements to people at the scene following the shooting or to his common law wife and son with whom he had grief contact following the shooting i'm shooting occurred to sell goes to the owner if ever he needed the money and this became important because the evidence showed the defendant was actually at the scene of it auto body shop twice spend several hours there that afternoon he was drinking with the victim of the victim's girlfriend apparently they both became entire execrated engaged in a verbal argument the owner felt the defendant was getting a little bit out of hand and belligerent and so he told the defendant to go home and did go along shortly thereafter he came back he was armed had a confrontation with the victim shot and killed him the state argue to the jury in closing that the defendant that the two men who had previously been gauged in legal gun transactions defendant further testified that that day he had a brief conversation with the owner about selling him additional guns but the owners unite any conversation that day and so the problem here i think is that if the jury believe the owner they might be less likely to believe that was the defendant's intent in going back to the shop but if they heard he had a  preexisting standing offer they might have believed yeah that was what the defendant was really thinking despite the owner's testimony that they didn't talk about it that day and therefore this was being introduced to show his state of mind not the truth of the matter asserted and an out of court statement where relevant can be introduced to show use of the speaker's state of mind or the defendant's state of mind here was being introduced to show the defendant's state of mind and so defendant again argues it was not in shop and what happened during the confrontation with inter by guns but with a bright right because again the jury believed the owners testimony that although they didn't teach it in prior transactions they didn't talk about it that way the of course the people continue to assert that this testimony of the defendant was undermined not by his inability to get in this remote in time here say but by the fact that he in fact returned to the same with only the one loaded weapon in his wa  his wife's testimony that the first time he came home she could tell he was drunk she heard me go into the bedroom she heard him open the safe and then he laughed and then he came back and he was more shaken up and  told her he loved her until the wife the son to take care of his mother went back into the room where the guns were and left again additionally when he was being questioned by the place an hour after the incident he told them he came back to the scene with just the one gun and after the shooting he went home he got the rest of his guns loaded them in the truck and took off so if the jury does believe she's just worried that he was coming back out there to show and some guns it was more likely undermined by all of the other testimony in the case not by the fact that he couldn't get in this one hearsay at a set of evidence additionally and they testified that they had had gun transactions in the past that evidence was before the jury and he was not harmed by keeping out a specific statement of  statement that may have made him a week or even earlier than that he was very vague on the time so there was the judge was right in keeping out the statement it was adequate other evidence of his testimony at trial as to why h claim of recent fabrication with regard to the statement that the officer heard the officer was quite candid in some nations stating that he had a hearing impairment so he felt he could hear well but yes it was quite possible that he  plain fabricated that defense and within an hour of the shooting he's already telling the police that is a fact musing to myself before the police ever come in the other type of the night so however what the police but the people argue was that he didn't state that to the we argue that he didn't tell his wife or he didn't tell and the people at the scene that heard the gunshot ran out and so i'm standing there like this put the gun in his waistband much like to get back in probably twenty minutes so if it was consistent with what he said on the video and and his testimony at trial the fact that he he was not allowed to also tell the jury no i didn't say what he heard but this is what i out except for this one because it showed his attitude toward life what he considered to be a low life was perhaps somebody deserving of less respect than anybody else similarly a trial he introduced evidence painting the victim in a bad light of all of his tattoos and other bad acts that he had been involved in that the victim had been involved in be the one statement that the judge kept in the people believed was relevant evidence relevant of the defendant's attitude toward people that he felt alone was very flippant attitude toward life and therefore was relevant to the the killing and the defense of self defense raised and so the judge a and it involves a situation where one side introduces part of a statement or part of the communication and the other side to give more formal and complete picture of the communication is allowed to preserve the remaining parts of the jury opening the door with what the defense believes is a misstatement so now the defense should be allowed to to respond and say what he actually said so the case law although the different doctrines it's true that he's lot talks about some of them almost interchange that that was really the the reason why the defendant returned to the shop the reason he returned to the shop what his mental state was at the time of the shooting whether we're not hearing self defense this was injury question the jury should precluded from completely getting his story out to the jury the jury was unfairly limited in being given all of the evidence on which to make that decision and for that reason and all of these reasons it can