had constructive possession of two handguns found in another person's purse but it turned into something very different in the course of trying to prove that mr will  handguns the prosecution brought in a heap of prejudicial evidence of alleged other crimes allowing in so much evidence was air and the diversion outcomes of the two young charges here show that these errors were not harmless where all of the other none of the other crimes evidence went to the charge of which mr will was acquitted and all of that evidence went to the charge of which he was convicted mr will receive a fair trial our supreme court has talked at length of how this type of air strikes at the very integrity of our system of justice because we don't just care about the outcome of the case we care about the process the results of us outcomes and this process details included that mr whittle was a high level heroin dealer he wasn't just a heroin dealer he was he was quote the source for heroin kater mr a very detailed out in his in the course of his dealings with different heroin dealers he moved up the food chain to mr will from lower level dealers to get a better price for heroin that is that is an outrageous detail he also testified that mr whipple sold to heroin at least one hundred times was quite similar those were their objections made to some of these details that you're talking about beyond the global of jackson that the other crimes evidence should not be admitted this repairers testimony in general should not be a there was not your honor although i think that such an injection would not have been proper given the route scope of the court's ruling on what was to be allowed and i think there could be somewhat of a fine line there why is that because the court rivera's testimony and in the offer proof it said you can testify to all this that the ruling on what would be allowed had no limitations whatsoever so there was no there was no scope limitation to invoke for objective so my argument is that that that broad ruling if there was no room for counsel to object and say this is beyond the scope of what your honor allowed because what was allowed was so broad so i think it's properly before court of appeal here i don't i don't think there was much else that defense counsel could do in this situation here so thoroughly challenge this evidence at every stage leading up to that testimony especially where these criminal mastermind drug dealing kingpin was this the source for heroin kater these details were inappropriate because they they went beyond any legitimate purpose knowledge or possession because they should not have gone for th also a police officer detective cars or testified expressly to corroborate some parts of the story of this repair our supreme court has clearly stated the evidence of other crimes cannot be admitted to enhance will admit it to him that he was a heroin dealer that's the only commonality between these two pieces of testimony so the thing that causes corroborating from are various i suppose is itself a wildly prejudicial detail that does not go into  possession of the gun it's a component of rivera story but it's another stuff from move from that legitimate case and so cause or can't testify just to just enhanced rivera's credibility on this one  honor i think i think it is but in this sense it goes too far it strays too far from the original issue and i think that how long the calls are testified was brief just to this point i'm sorry i wasn't cause mini trial on this on to a point that is already prejudicial to mr will and that that purpose of justin hansing rivera's credibility should not have been allowed here it's also arbitrary when compared with the court treatment of eliel obama who also would have testified that mr whittle was a heroin dealer and the court decided that was going too far but causers testimony could be allowed and there's no distinction between the very point had it all wanted it that is true of him but but the point i just made that there's no distinction between the two i don't see how that is careful balancing if you choose to pick one that is essentially the same as the other and say one is going too far in the other one is perfectly acceptable i don't see how that's careful balancing when there is no rational basis for distinguishing between the two and that is the essence of the abuse of discretion standard of review it's an arbitrary decision to choose between these two pieces of testimony that's not careful balancing when there's no distinguishing factor between both of these pieces of testimony would have simply stated that mr whipple is a heroin dealer and the court indistinguishable between them didn't say i think we can only allow any one to testify because this  this is prejudicial it said well i think that's getting a little too far lobato what it actually testified to relationship between rivera and mr will so in some ways her testimony on your own history would have more relevance here active he admits that he named a totally innocent man and so that he was guilty of this crime and then retract that once he got immunity for this province of the name mr will be a serious credibility problems that matters because putting detective causer on the witness stand testimony in the record that i'm aware of that gives a good time line of how much time elapses from the earlier time to go to the later stop and in the interim period the police testify that this s u v sits empty parks on the street for some empty for some period of time so it could be mr whittle in that s u v but it could have been someone else even though it was the same s u v driven lighter it was parked empty on the street for some period of time doesn't necessarily need to be considered other crimes evidence  of another offense that was not charged as an unlawful use of a weapon pointing at pointing a gun at the other person could be charged as a crime but it was not his face so i think it needs that basic definition it may also meet the exception struction so it may well have come in that way regardless but it wasn't properly dealt with and in that analysis i think i think more broadly the heartless and their harmless error analysis this that piece of evidence doesn't save this case was the point i was trying to make is this court finds that there are a number of other prime piece of other kind of evidence that should have been more limited or should not have come in and off it should find that this these errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the only at some serious credibility issues herself she changed her story repeatedly from initially saying the guns belong to her so using mr will to back to saying guns were hers and so there's there's ample reason to understand why the jury might not might not have fully believed her story but this sets up almost a perfect science experiment for this court of harmless air we have we have two guns and charges built on those guns all the other crimes evidence goes to the time the evidence was received as well as before the jury deliberated the jury clearly follow those instructions one and acquitted the defendant on the three hundred fifty seven caliber handgun garth the fact that the jury acquitted defendant on that hand narrative of this case as this court has suggested just a stagnant indeed and people versus johnson the jurors need to know the background of this story otherwise the bands that have occurred are otherwise inexplicable that's exactly what we have here absent the testimony of jackson and milan and rick here around we would have been in a position where the jurors are now confronted with this playing and eluding scene for apparently no reason whatsoever what happened here the girls pulled up to an intersection the vehicle pulled up next to them and they saw the driver of that vehicle point a gun at them they turned away from the intersection went to a gas station and called the police that's how this whole chain of events began they gave the police officers a license plate number of police narrative in this case and without the testimony of these girls the events that unfolded would be otherwise inexplicable your honor next there was significant discussion about the testimony of william rivera during the court exercise that's  and the chinese questioned her very as to why this stuff timony would be that day so that the court was sure that he was going to testify such as the state and suggested he would during the motion eliminate hearing the court hear carefully exercised its discretion when it came to the testimony and prepare they were to proffer such support ensured we're going to be consistent with what rivera then testified to in front of the jury furthermore the court provided a limiting instruction before a very testified that the jury can only consider his testimony is a player in this chain of events that took place he interviewed the defendant right after he was arrested from the vehicle after this police chase detective cossar isn't just some random passer by the state right and he's an integral part of this whole investigation and that's why his testimony was admissible furthermore your honor so the state may present evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt that's the whole point of what's happening here as defendant has suggested both in his brief and in his arguments today there were credibility issues with rivera but the jury was aware of all of those credibility issues the jury wasn't left in the dark as to whether he had any credibility issues there was testimony that his story had changed that he did have a criminal history and the jury was aware of that and they were in the best position to judge his credibility your honor is that the court here carefully exercise it's just a question particularly as it related to david rivera they provided all the proper limiting instructions in this case but at the time the evidence was presented as well as before the jury deliberated the jury clearly follow those instructions as is demonstrated by the fact that they have put a defendant on the three hundred fifty seven caliber handgun that demonstrates that they follow those instructions and based on the evidence they believe that defendant only possessed the forty caliber glock if the jurors really believed that the defendant was a criminal kingpin and a bad person they would have convicted him on both guns and they didn't do that in this case once they were  they could consider the other kinds of evidence as it related to defendant's knowledge of the weapon they follow those instructions to decide the primary question in this case of whether the defendant possessed that handgun they found that he did possess the forty the court did not give any kind of indication on the record but i recall of exactly what i thought that these phone calls meant the phone calls particularly if the second one was and miss a ball to show that defendant had throughout this maintained that he didn't know rivera that he had nothing to do with this that phone call is important to suggest that yeah you did know him you have a relationship with this person and the phone calls as evidence from the transcript that you just talked about the defendant is talking about i'm am quotes from out of town talking about something that was stolen you got a holler at him i don't even want to holler at dude the state suggested that dude was provera and your honour's i think what's important is your honor just said you read through the transcript a few times i stress just statement has noted it just recently i believe last month and people versus had in the peril language and these cases is so important to how things are said the listening of facts that i have on the jury that we shouldn't we shouldn't oh back on the jury's decision in this kind of a situation where they're the ones who are listening where they're the ones who are considering how things are said the inflection and how things are sad there's such a different perspective when you read something on paper versus when you actually listened to the things that were sad and how they were said to defense on her testimony was indeed true that she was truthful to the jury when she said that he passed back these five and she sort of took the fall for him initially before coming forward with the truth and in terms of the second phone call important to consider the listening a factor of those song calls on the jurors as opposed to just what we have on calls paper and transcripts gunner's those phone calls are important because they suggested that semen i was being truthful that she was a credible witness again oh we had a similar situation to what we had with david rivera where there work credibility issues stories have changed over time and the jersey knew that they weren't left in the dark about the credibility issues that these witnesses had they neal that stories had changed in fact there was a little bit of testimony about gabrielsson you know even going to defense counsel to say that she is indeed the one that had something to do with this the jury knew all of these things they consider how everyone testified they consider the multiple stories and they found it funny guilty of the it's here the court to exercise its discretion and provided all the proper limiting instructions and defendant was not prejudiced by the other kinds of evidence that was entered in this case as evidenced by their split verdict from where they relates the contents of his conversation with with the detective to another person on the phone he's not he's not saying that he knows this person he just says the police asked me about some money from out of town that's talking about something that was stolen he's just