situation where it's evidence about a prior bad act that maybe occurred five years ago say the guy had a drunk driving offense in this case they find out that he's i'm fine and yet he still can't conform his behavior by virtue of the fact that he's arrested this hotel room and mr white face of the had very quickly and removes something sixtus mouth while there's also a controlled substance found in the hotel room so it's easy thing to argue motiv it's not automatically admissible but under these facts a reasonable inference could be that his motive and it could be argued by the state based on the facts that his motive is he doesn't want to get charged with constructive possession of whatever that item  subjected to a bouncing test that you know we have to consider what's the prejudicial fact versus the program valuing here as i mentioned you know the juries a lot of the speculate and they see mr white sitting there they're hearing that savants and they  know he's a guy who's that good obey the law he's obviously got a heading charge they don't know what it is speculation on their part this isn't something where they learned he did something ten years ago he paid this price this society this informs the jury that he has  going criminal case and yet here he is still engaging kind ag in conduct growth rather that could subject in the criminal liability the problem here too is that this evidence was presented through a statement of judicial notice french to the jury by the judge this is a evidence that was presented through witness testimony the judges getting the sack but well i think it's more fair to say that a jury is more apt to pay attention to what the judge says the judges but i'm i'm tired few well he's telling them you know here's a piece of evidence coming for me it's not coming from the parties i think that the father said you think a jury that does carry more weight the judge is more important on the parties when it comes to the jury they're listening to the judge for guidance they're paying attention hopefully to what the judge says and that's sort of in that regard you know it is prejudicial in the sense that the savants calls it very speculate but it's also coming from a source who presume we had carries more weight most already than just the parties in the courtroom and also you know this this was capitalized on by the state in their closing argument and what they're doing is arguing that his motive is that he's on fun he doesn't want to violate a spine and if he does so then he great condition of his father was that he wasn't piece of evidence so i mean i think that what we're violence of what bad and says they obviously don't get the evidence to conclude what it was but that the defendant minute the charge offenses so here confusion could arise from the fact that this instruction that says the jury snapped required to prove something to be confusing to victory these are lame and they're going to sort of different signal that it's not an accurate statement but this is a perfect example where it's unnecessary because i was totally clear and because it mentions to take what the status quo not required to prove that it's not appropriate not in this case where the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt there's it's just not necessary it's nine mr white a fair trial and for both of those reasons i would mention that both these errors are fully tresor they contributed to his conviction fact that it's really in a political motive is relevant and here that the motive was in fact clickable because there was evidence defendant was on both ends and that one of his fine conditions was that he not commit another crime and that pending th isn't proper evidence already who says no your honor disagrees with that decision of the defendant because a miranda violation only occurs when the defendant's statements that were on well in terms of what the judge's ruling were trial in terms of whether and women a context and whether in at peace item of evidence is admissible for example foundation doesn't have to be something that the jury excluded for purposes of miranda rule is the defendant's statements so in other words the idea that someone would swallow a bag because they are on bonds and that provides a bow to for them to do  use by the prosecution in their case in chief at trial however that doesn't mean that the defense can cite saying now look your honor that's not a good motive for swallowing a baby when the judge just heard the defendant explain at that hearing then it becomes an issue as to whether to stay trial judge abused its discretion by ruling in the manner it did on the issue of probative value versus prejudice when it defendant said prosecutors have to prove the defendant committed another crime and therefore the tree would be hearing details about the defense commission of another crime and that would be a lot more prejudicial than the situation just with the jury only hears that defendant has another pending pending  jury speculate but here the judge exercise discretion to make sure that new images would be mitigated in this particular case for these particular jerks for them not to know the particulars of the defendant's charge other pending case and so that does mitigate  prejudice as well as the fact that this court has to heave the case where the faith and properly instructed jury to separate issues this court system so essentially it does mitigate the prejudice the fact that the jury does receive a limiting instruction so even if this were a close issue because of the abuse of discretion standard group view this court would be bound to affirm because there has to be a clearly erroneous decision by the judge to permit this evidence to come in and if they are going to if it's a close case the defendant loses this argument because the judge exercise of discretion against  of unborn statements that would be subject to miranda exclusionary rule that would mean evidence of the fact that the judge that the state and the trial court learned of the defense reason pursuant to fact that's not something that has to be forgotten you know their words involved and the fact that the defendant has more than one vote it doesn't mean that the evidence of one of those motives is not probative as to why the defendant did what he did so with respect to i p i issue the question is really struction where for example under bush the existing i prize at the time for home invasion the not defined whether an entry would be or would not be an authorized because there was no definition on the no its i p o instruction on limited authority doctrine error and so this is not a situation where items or passengers are being polled out of appellate court opinions this was a lot more necessary than just an ordinary case because there was a fairly extensive cross examination that was brewing with respect to the state's witnesses by the defense as to whether the witnesses knew that what the item that defendant swallowed did or did not contain an illegal substance or what the nature of that substance was for example what it says to certain physical characteristics that would make it appear to be cocaine or cannabis because of that situation the defendant claims that while the defendant never argued that that essentially the defendant would not have been able to argue that in the face of that instruction but that instruction was necessary to protect the state's right to fret to a fair trial because otherwise as intense as this should be a matter of life or argument is his position but really it's a situation where if this were left the argument the defendant would have been able to argue to the jury that well this was not known to be an illegal substance therefore you should acquit him of obstructing justice which is not the law because this state does not have to prove its the physical evidence was in fact illegal so for because that means for mr y it's the state's burden which we were just talking about the state of the burden of proving under chapman u s supreme court has said there's a trial lawyer which were maintained there is to trial lawyers here they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt did not contribute to his conviction the first air prejudice we have rules against evidence and about prior bad acts by the defendant why has we jury is a danger that the jury could misuse the evidence even if they're slimming world that's why we have a balancing test that's exactly the reason why  state also seems to be carving asking this court to carve out a new role some sort of exception where evidence is excluded in this case being mr white statement that somehow one counsel pointed this out to low stakes and then back toward it i think we should look at this and i context of assuming mr white never made the statement and this the prosecutor during trial came to a judge and said judge this guy was on bond we think that's his motive and that's why solving that i think a trial just sitting there with nothing else no can't separate the fact that the judge didn't hear the seven so that's the state's whole argument in closing argument he's doing this because he's on bond while if mr white never made that statement and we have other cases funny cases i think for a defense or getting rest in drug white on trial for something now seems kind of hotel room they know he's already got some other charges against him and this information is coming from the charge so i think that is a problem as well so