says that he admitted to the conduct that comprise the elements of domestic battery and i'm all for restraint and he wasn't allowed to argue that it was justified so this it is actually an extraordinary prejudice that it happened after his left which would be a necessity which would come from the necessity defense the actual conduct when she's throwing the glass bottles at him when she's punching him kicking him and there's no indication that he could have just immediately left in that situation where he  and put the justification defense in opening statement he said that the complaining became violent and that mr b held him down in restraint or to prevent her from putting mr and herself so it is reall appropriate because there was no jury waiting there inconvenience to the parties in the case and then continued for a month there's no reason it couldn't have been continued if necessary again and so the fact the trial court's error when refusing to order a continu ghias account in the context of whether his actions were legally jest and that's the prejudice if you look at the question of prejudice as i read it there was a reasonable probability that this error could have changed the outcome of the trial to the ground that's a reasonable response in to kind that which was throwing things punching him kicking him spitting on him breaking glass bottles so he's not the one who scores the provocation in that situation and the question is simply whether this testimony raised different of defenses of self defense certainly his testimony that she was the one provoking him throwing things at him that raises defense of self defense and that's what the court should we didn't hear you here did nothing statement and then he changed tactics in closing argument and said the bruises must of them result of their own intoxication frailing and falling to the ground he actually changed his closing argument after the court said i'm not going to tell you to man the an has already pointed out the defense counsel specifically with respect to those charges he says that the complainant had become violent and that mr greene responded by holding her down and restraining her in order to prevent her from hurting mr green herself  he absolutely had to notify the state and the court as head of time in order to present those defenses it's clear that mr briss testimony rezan a surprise because at goodwood trial concert had already said he was going to be presenting as his defense in opening statement failure the trial never considered whether the kind that was justified that's the prejudice and this case and that's why mr b is conviction should be vacated and that he's not in a situation where he's already admitted to the conduct and then  state and the defense had presented their entire case and she the state had i do have an opportunity to cross examine the defendant rested this the case that really one month date and at that and contrary to counsel as i really wasn't that the trial were accepted completely run this is testimony and completely rejected the other it's not it's certainly not an all or nothing concept here there  physical abuse and beating he received from the victim but that didn't happen because he was in fact the aggressor in this case in really the victim's testimony we also have two specific instances of response was to hold her down and restrain her and that raises the defense of self defense and also it's answer justice lambkins earlier question which i didn't do a very good job answering regretting was precisely what the court said when it declines to allow quote then goes on to say and so the motion to amend the answer is denied and so that's an indication that the court was refusing to consider the affirmative defenses because councils have not included them and yet i believe i was the state i don't think the judge then in his mind without saying so on the record then went ahead and considered those defenses anyway that's not really a fair reading of the record what he did do and what he believed was appropriate because the trail council's ineffectiveness was declined