in the older one doesn't and they know that she's a person from lawyer with the police in the law and justice system because there's a is great on the defendant then it would out then under state and go back to the believe ability issue here the believe ability issue is magnified when it's a friend and again we're going back to the status of the witness here the this conviction you also must look at what happened subsequent to her testimony subsequent to her testimony she testify understand that she saw mr mack with a gun and subsequent to that testimony the state c on sergeant williams who pulled the bolster her testimony by saying in i spoke with her i will send that night and wilson said she saw a map with the gun so you have a prior consistent statement coming in to both on the admission of the complexions for impeachment so the jury was formed it sounds like of a prior conviction now not specifically as to what that conviction was big shooting was informed that she had a prior zero so even though the trial court's referencing it during the hearing maybe i'm hearing was outside of their of the mood you're saying maybe the jury wasn't informed that it was domestic battery with a prior witness was the only witness that identified defendant as the shooter although this was not in the state's case in chief and a rebuttal witness the state called detective hubbard who testified that one of the defendant witnesses told him on the night that mack was indeed the shooter so for what it's worth the jury did hear that defense witness lacked credibility because on the night of the shooting in fact told the detective that mack was also the shooter which is in conjunction which with wilson's testimony further evidence evidence in that fact now in regards to the montgomery discretionary issue state understands how in this case that is somewhat different because it is a witness and not the defendant who is being impeached however the record makes clear that the trial court was aware of the montgomery test explicitly referenced it and it utilized its discretion to determining that the defendant was there the witness was already being impeached by the zero nine i believe domestic battery and also that she was had a warrant out for us on the evening of the occurrence and the jury was aware of these facts and as  these and the trial court actually explicitly stated in this ruling is that these two crimes are not crimes of dishonesty or to see to see their just due to violence which doesn't really go directly towards her credibility as a witness although the state does acknowledge the fence councils reliance on the case saying that any felon a felony it's considered testimony of the sea state also goes back to what justice connex stated whereas just because it's violence i don't personally see how that relates to the testimony of the seed it's just a violent incident doesn't mean she's an incredible witness going further if you look throughout the record the trial court also property limited properly limited the defendant's own prior convictions which further effort inst the truck which discussion throughout the trial and the state's position is that nowhere heard regarding this discretionary issue of the impeachment evidence against wilson the trial court properly understood and utilized the montgomery bouncing fest and as a result this court sho and regardless the hearsay issues i'll focus on the second statement regarding the officers testimony about wilson's stating defendant was the shooter the state did initially argue that this was used to explain police procedure but the state also doesn't knowledge it's more problematic than the initial statement that was discussed other any error regarding this alternative argument is is that it's harmless as there's no confrontational issues because wilson who was the one who allegedly told the officer in the officer restated her testimony was present at trial and was open to cross examination and regardless of that the evidence in this case regarding the specific count was overwhelming although we did not get to this issue in here on his prior discussions with counsel there was i want to stress the money saying that if it was the shooter there was also a plethora of circumstantial evidence there gunshot residue that was found on the defendants and clearly whether through actual possession or constructive possession the state overwhelmingly proved defendant's guilt regarding this issue and another issue defendant takes issue with his the jury verdicts and he argues that because the jury acquitted defendant of aggravated destruct of a firearm that it was inconsistent for them to find that defendant possessed the firearm but as set forth in this brief besides being conjecture as to what the jury was thinking the jury could have found that even though the defendant possessed the firearm he may not have aimed it at a vehicle knowing to be occupied by a person which would have a lot of the jury still acquit the defendant based on the aggravated discharge of a firearm charge but still find him guilty of the possession of a firearm but obviously as a piece of the city that's conjecture however there's still sufficient and overwhelming evidence that the defendant was guilty of of a firearm by phone one of their show put that discusses the misstatement of the evidence by the prosecutor in closing the state's position is this was clearly just reasonable different inferences from the evidence that was presented at trial the finot takes issue with the statement that the prosecutor stated the defendant was hiding the firearm however if you look at the testimony or the evidence presented at trial there was evidence defendant discharged firearm and that he returned to that specific residence the police later and third the residence and searched the residence and where was the firearm found partially visible in a closet it's clearly a reasonable inference that the defendant hid the firearm therefore the prosecutor to state that the farm was hidden was not improper and was clearly not prosecuted prosecutorial misconduct that should require a new trial  believe that is all the issues that the oh one other issue i apologize is the finance issues which the supreme court has just set forth in people verse yarra i believe that stated that if the circuit clerk improperly imposes public court has without jurisdiction for direct review so the state would request this court to find that there is no jurisdiction to review those claims and to not rule on that issue and if there's issue here is whether the statement itself was necessary for police crime the statement itself is testimony or hearsay without because the statement a certain matter stated after outside of the court