appeal is that the proof is insufficient to sustain the convictions be entered reasonable doubt the brief underlying facts that control the issue in this case the injuries were inflicted here and she never the less believed them mr rushing had beaten her and essentially her was her testimony as i recall back after the injury and she woke up or came to deal with something like she remembered him saying you had it coming or something of that nature correct and wouldn't that indicate that he either was the or when it happened or then he had in fact to accompl there was a current there she testified to to the effect that if she attempted to contact the police that he would make that he mr rushing would make it worse for her and who specifically who was present in the room but it is true that the other potential evidence he had against mr rushing that could have some string would her feel that he was scary and that may be true she she did testify that threats were made in this interchange before she discovered her injuries but however she does not describe what those threats may have been in and then gets to the problem of the complainants testimony in general which is that it is very sketchy in it is not sufficient it could they could a jury believe that since we don't have evidence that she had a broken leg or a broken arm i think the most extreme and the extremity that was injured she said or he entered a but we don't have any other significant injuries other than head couldn't the jury assuming that this sketchy testimony as you describe it has something to do with either what they said what she admitted they had been doing a concept the discussion about a dirty needle and the fact that she had head injuries well i'm at that man beat and there weren't any of the i mean she she knew she was bleeding from the crowd somehow never heard is true but there are but one looks at the entire strength of the circumstantial evidence in their case and in their particular case the to argue that there we must be the type of circumstance but one has to work together particularly strong evidence that was present in great damaging to sustain those convictions and discovered i can't these injuries and that's how i know the big happened because i have them but not greatly of the reason and then these other statements here and in these other statements are essentially had it coming to you and i will make it worse for you if you time to the please what about him just well at least according to the police who arrived and he wasn't there and the complainant who said she again  woke up or got cold and turned over and the door was open correct the door was open and wasn't isn't there i mean they want to grab his absences is dead any you know we always say fleeing has that he was no longer we don't know when he left and we really don't even know the time period it was between her last period of consciousness whatever it is that the state presented to suggest that that her own contradicted testimony the victim was that they were alone in the room before and after the accident and they had been in the hotel for about a month and they had never been with a third party in their hotel room having been having a party at some point and there were other potential defendants from around that might have perpetrated this injury your honor might have a point later on contradict the evidence i by the nature i have not engaged in any context ports where injuries occur how exactly does one get injured as badly as the complainant did and have no knowledge that it occurred establish the fact that the mere injury causes a loss of memory such bad ever maybe people who were conscious who were strong who can't remember what happened just one or two comments found in the towels i would submit first of all that since the complainants testimony is so unclear about music how she heads toward or left the problems in the first place that there is really now a connection to these two russian having done this but who wasn't there some evidence that there was a phone near the bed reporting of domestic violence but it doesn't cure the problem that in order to be guilty of the old friends of interfering with the reporting of domestic violence you can do him first room who committed the domestic violence and and the ex what it is what is did issue before this court and it you know well wouldn't did also lend itself if i were sitting back in the jury room and talking about this case as i assume the jury did is they really reason for him to hide the phones if he isn't guilty of some activity that would be criminal there has been a lot of discussion pertinent with this state's counsel this morning regarding the likelihood of probability your strongest suspicions suggestion that there was drug actually arguing though if there is nothing and the person is so severely injured or impaired by what's happened the criminal is just going to walk in we're never going to  that testimony the evidence given by their witness cannot meet the reasonable doubt standard and reasonable doubt standard being as constitutionally mandated and in it is meet with submit will always win over the interest of the prosecution because their personal constitutional might