record until after he had testified the state had committed itself to the position that if they could not be impeached with evidence of his adjudications as a minor so long as he didn't bring up the subject during his direct examination and this was the state position not just in the trial court but also in the appellate court now however it was stated to me in the primary argument that the prosecution would have been justified in the trial judge would have had of this court already established governing the only appropriate time that be refuting whether the door was open but to address that oh it would be only appropriate to do in one way and that's the way that  done in response to specific testimony in all other situations is through cross examination with the appropriate foundation that the typical manner would be a harris versus new york type where there was  testimony is to lay a foundation a cross examination to find out whether or not the doors truly been opened the way it was done here was purely the type of impeachment that mongomery no cross examination covered whether the defendant opened the door stayed never asked the defendant do you mean to tell this jury that you always obeyed the law they simply waited until the proofs were closed and asked well as direct cross examination versus sort of right kyra well there are there are instances where cross examination of prior convictions is the the problem i have comes a little bit earlier in this whole process and that is heavily established that the doors as been opened by the statement i'm like you i work i go to college i don't make crimes coming from a twenty year old defendant the crying game peach that was from when he was fifteen years old the question has to be addressed whether or not the door was open what do its introduction you just mentioned open the door so i'd like to ask your question i assume your client we know he didn't do this but assume your client had testified that he never committed a crime in his life i mean couldn't be more specific never committed a crime in his one under those facts with the state be allowed to impeach him with his prior jubal into the case under those things just based on the jefferson rationale of the just him i think in fairness to the state either of two things could happen he could be in there be within the trial judge's discretion in my opinion either he could be impeac with the contradictory proof that directly contradicts his statement or the judge could ask the jury to strike become ok so i'm going to take  down to what we haven't gotten to yet is whether you're quiet good or did not open the door right agree i agree with that i think the crux of this case is whether or not the door was open ended and if it was not open then we don't raise the question of how is the impeachment to be done it's it to be done in the same way that prior inconsistent statement impeachment would be done as it would be done through the introduction of certified copies as demonstrative exhibits but the first question and the question which justice o'brian in her dissenting opinion the public court i believe reasonably answer is what does the statement of a twenty year old defendant i don't commit crimes go to college i work i'm just like you open the door to how  a person well because the rehabilitation values that are still intact in the juvenile court this is a youthful defend because he is portraying himself like the jurors who are adults he is trying to in my grade by i make the point that this statement could as well be five year old you know youthful offense that there was something more recent that you know well it's a two thousand event that resulted in adjudication in the year two his twelve birthday until his fifteenth and the most recent was when he was fifteen affirmatively contradicts an aspect of his prior record narrowing it to the context of this case the existence or nonexisten prior run ins with the law adjudications or or finished and he dictions where there's an affirmative denial of some if not all of a person's and the state had at its disposal that there was more than that now the door's been opened and just as in the jefferson case you have a case where committed this crime then he goes on to talk about where he went to school and everything and then he ends with the operative words here i don't commit crimes couldn't there be reasonably interpreted assertion that i didn't commit this crime or any other problems well that brings me back to the point of the hate of the defendant i believe that that statement coming perhaps from a person who has a ten year period of adult life and you you could you could look back and and make a determination under my government has already you know general impeachment crimes  that's not correct that is correct that is the standard and i believe that the correct interpretation of whether there was abuse of discretion was the one made by j  the last you know experiencing the criminal courts or the juvenile courts the more it opens the door i mean i'll admit that it's a close question i've talked to a number of people about this issue looking for almost a survey of what do you think this says when the person has a five year old you know before he had a driver's license he's crying that he i'm sure isn't forgotten now but he's hoping is not defendant's party of knowledge occasion any error by the trial court was harmless where there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt in this case and turning to the first issue i'd like to start with the argument that the people cannot raise the argument that section five dash new position but it's not in contrary or inconsistent position with the arguments that we raise below and there's been no violation therefore of the principle that this court articulated and people resist frankland now in that case this court held that a prevailing party may raise in support of judgment any reason appearing in the record but may not do so but that position is inconsistent or contradictory with the position that was taken blow here in this case we are hearing this appeal that section testifying to fund it cannot be impeached with a prior juvenile adjudication we're not arguing in this appeal that proposed rule that evidence six hundred ninety l ause for this type of impeachment therefore the position that we're taking in this appeal is not contradictory or inconsistent with the position that we took below second even if this court finds that the positions are contradictory this court actually cited supervisory authority to reach this issue there's no dispute between the parties here that there's a conflict that exists between section five case and affirm that event is conviction under harris vs new york however this courtship also decided which provision is the controlling provision regarding the impeachment of a testifying than it with a prior juvenile education particularly in this i would not disagree with this court under chapter seven and the united states supreme court's decision in harris vs new york the principle that otherwise inadmissible evidence can become admissible where the defendant opens the door on direct examination  testifying falsely or misrepresents a part of his criminal history in here is first is new york the united states supreme court addressed a situation where the defendant give testimony on direct examination that was contrary to the statement that he had  lead opinion in the third district held it would likely have led to a broader scope of inquiry regarding the defendant's prior juvenile history at the state was allowed to conduct a cross examination about it that the defendant here has five prior juvenile educations on his conflict the legislature by enacting section five dash one fifty one c was showing its intent to supplant pows rule that in six or ninety will if they wanted to wipe off the government why would they even make reference to the rules of the the rules of conduct the bouncing test articulated by the score in my government pursuant to those rules have been six in nineteen be there for the court would have to determine whether the juvenile adjudications were under ten years old whether they involve the crime of dishonesty statements whether there was a punishment in excess of the year and most importantly the tramper would have to determine whether the probative value of admitting the educations was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice has recognized those changes and people versus taylor that in one thousand nine hundred eighty the legislature recognized that there was going to be a shift between the policy and purposes underlying juvenile court proceedings that there was a fundamental shift point one from the code which specifically authorized the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements in a criminal trial in people versus orange a decision that followed it four years later this word specifically rejected this apparition of powers see if we could go back to the argument about whether here the defendant open the door to the introduction this part you know education's recent side of the testimony that has led to the opening the door and it's not simply the statement that where the fan to testify that he doesn't make crimes at this point you consider should also consider the fact that the defendant gave a monologue here he not only denied committing crimes but he also stated people who commit crimes like that have a motive for doing so i don't have a motive for doing so because i am a professional man i go to school i live a productive life i live just like any of the other jurors and i don't commit crimes now given the defendant's prior juvenile history with five prior juvenile adjudications on his record the trumpet properly exercised discretion and reasonably only allowed the introduction of the two most recent educations arising out of a single transaction rather than allowing all five of the to come in the meaning that the bend here is trying to apply is that the spending here was simply saying i don't commit crimes intending to convey the idea to the jury that he he's not committing crimes at this very doesn't commit crimes that he lives just like any of the jurors he lives a law abiding life and the timing here is important in that the defendant's prior juvenile adjudications were less than ten years old so it would fall into that my government princip and then also his the committing of the insane crime in august of two thousand for the defendant here commit the crime and earl was adjudicated delinquent in january of two thousand and one was sentenced to the juvenile department of corrections and february two thousand  who roll from the juvenile department of corrections and january of two thousand to violated his probation and then it was sentenced back to the juvenile hartman of corrections in october of two thousand and two he was then discharged from his sentence and may of two thousand four so there is a short time span and there's a lot of activity that's happening between the time that the defendant was adjudicated delinquent of these offenses and the time that he committed the instant offense in august two thousand  actually the fact that in the finance prior jury trial and in a mistrial based on a jury's failure to render a verdict is certainly a factor that this court can consider in determining whether the evidence was close in this case however when the court conducts an independent examination of the evidence that was presented at the defendant's their jury trial it will find that the evidence that was presented at this trial was not substantially identical to the evidence that was presented at the defendant's first and second jury trials rather was significant impeachment evidence which attack the credibility and the reliability of the defendant's key alibi witnesses in his case and it was this impeachment evidence not the introduction of the defendant's prior juvenile education which is th factor here the key to the inconsistent testimony in this case is that it's not simply the quantity of the the inconsistency that will point out by the people but also the quality of the statements and that the testimony of the the third trial showed that the memories of the two alibi witnesses provided by the defendant those memories were not getting fuzzier less precise over time as one would expect given that memories tend to fade over time how are they are getting more precise they were getting to the alibi testimony was getting stronger so as to corroborate the defend his alibi in this case and people were able to point out things he consistencies to the jury and the jury was able to determine that these witnesses were completely unreliable one of the main  am so there's a constant progression here that would make the defend his alibi witnesses appear stronger but when pointed out these inconsistency tended to undermine their reliability in front of the jury and when compared to the testimony that was provided by the people's eyewitness testimony the evidence here was overwhelming the people presented two eyewitnesses who positively and consistently identified the defendant as one of the armed robbers in this case both of whom view the defendant at the time of the robbery under circumstances that would tend to indicate that the at their identification testimony was reliable so when compared to when comparing the unreliable witness testimony of the past the defendants he alibi witnesses to the positive inconsistent testimony of the state's i identification witnesses the evidence here was overwhelming even at the trial court even if this court finds that there was an abuse of discretion in meeting the defendant words he used what words refer to the past tense as opposed to the statements about it were i have to get this out or i am a professional man i were to go to college i live a productive life i live just like getting  that's what i'm looking at is the bennett said i i have never committed a crime certainly that would have been at a clear case in the situation that we have here but since the fan it was trying to imply with his present tense statements that he had never that how does it point to the less than sterling well i think it's personal it's also the statement where he says i live just like any of the other jurors i don't commit crimes all of these statements together can be construed as  ferment of representation even though they're in the present tense that he had never committed a crime if that if it was simply trying to convey by saying i don't commit crimes that he is not mean crimes in the present tense that that's simply not a plaus will try to be brief i can see that this case is really narrow it down to whether or not those statements of that if they were opening the door or not and in my opinion to find if you open the door you have to disregard or extremely minimize the prospect of rehabilitation and i would just make an analogy to going over some college campuses and interviewing people on the quad and saying are you a do with whether or not you're passed on to and that's why i believe the age is important and the five year span of time is important with respect to the new argument convictions will come in once the decision is made as to whether any it was going to be allowed or which priors will be introduced the defendant has a chance to decide whether or not take the witness stand that did not happen here because there know after two layers of the court that this is not protecting the previous arguments is it putting the defendant at a disadvantage because when you know that under montgomery just his most recent g