participate in our discussion and in was a he said she said case that rested on whether the jury believed j b s claim that my client assaulted her over my client contention that the sexual relationship was consensual improper impeachment and consciousness of guilt of the days it was introduced against my client was therefore very prejudicial in addition the trial for improperly and unfairly and interfered with my client of justice and burglary should not have ben admitted to undermine his credibility as both conventions are over ten years old at the time of this trial and although he had he was properly impeached with a prior misdemeanor retail after conviction the number of prior convictions in mid as impeachment matters as this court recognized in people the hall the more priors the defendant is impeached with the less each prior conviction decreases as additional convictions were introduced and instead held that the multiple convictions actually increases the probative value does is it in this case that's the state credibility issues herself now although she testified that my client strangled her to the point where she almost blacked out there's no evidence that she of any trauma or injury to her in that  the the encounter so the the state of the disheveled state of jamie's room was evidence of my client's guilt only to the extent that the trier of fact believed assistance of counsel you get in the same place it's the these are improperly admitted impeachment evidence that's affected the trier of facts assessment of credibility in this case and  made well have changed the outcome of the trial therefore know this but because of that a demand for a new trial is warranted on this issue alone  guilt did not come in have this testimony that someone identified the individual he chased as my client was textbook and it admissible here was an out of court statement introduced descriptions of the flying vehicle there's no evidence that ever introduced at those descriptions are actually accurate and the fact that the prosecution introduced the hearsay statements regarding the subsequent identification suggest they so no evidence that g b consented was admissible to show both my client's state of mind at the time physically that he did he did not knowingly for stevie to have sex with him because he believed  substitute for his ability to present his consent to find one is time you have to consider how i looked to the jury he was asking are he testified on friday that they had a conversation evidence from the from my client he's trying to rip them apart so the jury does no way that their cross examination of my client in any way made up for his inability to re the other issue that you raise based on in this is how can we examine those issues without going outside in the record we have to decide what  her version of what happened none that were operates his version of what happened and the people at length created the argument that it was not a he said she pays he said she said case in response to the first issue and  been repeated in each of the others we've heard back to the first issue and would be for a visit court again to that beat jamie's testimony was consistent with the physical evidence with the photographs with the testimony that the board was split on the saw a person get out turn around in the light on the porch look at them that matched the description of the police got out of the car he took off running and they and they followed him ultimately losing him and the question asked at the end of his testimony was i likely that he saw him at the station he may have been the one who said yeah that's the guy it was chasing we don't know that was the only time the only question was was he eventually identified as defendant that is not hearsay statement we don't know who what the basis for that knowledge was the testimony was not improper and with regard to the third issue that defendant has raised here today people submit to it that the people's objection to the question as on the hearsay basis to not interfere with his exception to the hearsay rule in fact at post trial motions she argued that she was using that to impeach j b and as the state argued at the polls try motion there was no statement to the police because j p had never been asked during the cross examination did you ever objection was properly sustained and then in fact it's there was no question but that the jury knew that the defendant's consent or defense was consent and in fact the people summarized that as this is what you're saying that she consented to it and he said yes so the evidence was there before the jury he was not interfered it was not prevented in his ability to prevent it because then to defense he submitted a jury instruction not consent and that was allowed and that went to the jury that was a made and that's contained within the first issue of question issue me a former all offer of proof is not necessary when the character nature of the testimony the defense counsel intends to elicit is clear from the context and here it is clear that out of record material that are better raised in a post in fiction vision but there are some such as the in this case the improper of impeachment evidence that you don't have to outside the record for that you