sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by itself it must be positive credit and when we take a look at the entirety of her testimony and we compare it to some of the other issues that he was for example the lack of corroborating evidence from other witnesses for mental health history and in the absence of other corroborating evidence to enjoy your hours i don't believe that there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt i went through a number of examples in my opening brief as it relates to some of the inconsistency is going to the most going on that is worth consideration is when this took place my client was charged with essentially sexual assaults that took place on two different occasions this case we see that when this took place it's disputed essentially my client was charged with babysitting the alleged victim in this case and her brother the alleged victim testified that it took place in the middle of and look at that she was thirteen years old at the end of two thousand and thirteen still that means it could coincide with november two thousand and thirteen or several months later strain which fa kind of set up that leaves and so i would say that if there were issues that particularly when the girl particulars was file the easiest thing for the state to do would have been go to the state's witnesses and say how do you know when th and why but part of the reason why the date is in issues because mr sharper says that i didn't babysit in november or in january two thousand and thirteen i babysat in my grandfather's house in november of two thousand and thirteen not in january so that means everything that was that was alleged to have taken place it changes particularly when the victim herself has said in prior sworn testimony that i didn't see him in the beginning in two thousand songs at the end of two thousand and thirteen potentially during his november time and the reason why i think that the deed is relevant is because when we take a look at what evidence of what took place during this st babysitting incident took place there's no corroboration between the victim in the duke and the other if if if the evidence in the case is so on reasonable that a reasonable person should not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt this court has the power to set that aside and the only thing in this case that was straightforward from the new victim in this case was that she was  i think that if i think i understand the point then your honour's training me i don't think by itself into living outcry me render a decision in this case fatal but it is certainly something that can be considered as a whole and so when we have all this inconsistent testimony the lack of corroboration as to what actually took place at the grandfather's house that night the idea or the potential that she did she went back the nd night and degrees witness who testified as to what happened i really don't know the positive part of this but i know that a credible heart is and i don't believe that the other ensures that she's credible and when you have not credible testimony that's when courts have routinely heard that the the other issues they're going out as it relates to the to the state's mean witnesses who testified was is that they do have severe mental health history that you have issues which the victim there was no testimony as to when these issues started it was pretty clear record shows that the state took precautions they cleared out the court room and there was no objection and you that it is what it is it's adventurous eating in despite anything nothing really happening of anything and no not even the st question coming out and if the moment you walked out here and i stepped up here and i started to scream uncontrollably and had to flee the room certainly i'm sure you would be kind enough to perhaps address it in a more sensitive way or something like that would but we would all be right and if maybe i came she's taking medication there and i didn't usually work you know i should i believe in my grief i outlined specifically what she said including the parts where she says that sometimes she perceives things taking place as to not taking place so something she perceives something is happening that's not really happening in this he she says she said that she received threats but she acknowledged in trial that there was nothing threatening happening at the time that she walked into the court and sat down and so the reason i bring that up in this instance while we may be forgiving of the initial augers of her nerves for testifying the issue is is that if she's being on the stand sometimes i perceive things t happen that aren't really happening we have to consider well back then were there any issues going on she was clearly upset by something that caused her to leave was it once again the perception of something that happened that didn't really happen which seems to be in line with the fact that the victim never said anything inappropriate took place prior to the actual saw his mistress this was saying that they agree with that but i think the court's role is that if you look at this evidence of the whole and say that you know there's so much inconsistency here so much so many issues with the credibility for the witness the court is not bound by that trial judge's determination aggravated couple sexual abuse because the evidence of west efficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the standard of review in this case is after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution the evidence in this case show that when g g the victim was thirteen years old and defend it was twenty eight years old the victim spent the night at defendant's grandfather's house in january of two thousand and fourteen and defendant sexually  she talked about when the when the when she was working which would cooperate the incident took place in general testified that she worked a forty eight hour shift on the night in january and  thighs and arms she said that this incident was very unsavory as long as the state's distasteful the victim also described the night she provided a lot of detail as to what she claims that night looting the sexual abuse and how after the particular incident defendants came into the bathroom and opened of the shower curtain misgives him the victim's mother also testified that as i mentioned that defendant pete fact the victim and the victim's younger brother at the end of january and that she had worked forty eight hour shifts as a nurse rather opposing counsel does talk about the mental health issues of the victim as well as miss priestess able to testify extensively to their mental health issues and they both testified that they had no problem realizing what reality is and that their medications do not make them confuse reality with fantasy and as i mentioned a lot of their testimony was whore who operated inconsistency in that evidence and words hold under the column standard which you're relying on that we have to look at that evidence in the way most favorable to the state been weak and vary from the trial courts to try to nations if we believe that the evidence was not sufficient so that there is a since she was thirteen the mother testified the defendant babysat overnight only twice january th and then on february th to the twenty seven dollars again slight contradictions in the amount of time that babysitting took place still although her slight contradictions between a mother and her young daughter regarding babysitting frequency the facts do demonstrate the defendant's not whole lot of time the children that could be considered babysitting maybe the mother didn't consider babysitting maybe the daughter considered babysitting at one time defendant having lived at the mother's home he rented a room off and on for a few one thousand student two thousand and fourteen he also took the children to the park sometimes the state contends that regardless of whether defendant bab if you can show through i've testimony that you cannot recall what took place that day you have demonstrated that this is past recollection recorded and we can consider this evidence as substantive if this is the chose not to call the ten year old then when they got the ruling that they wanted for some reason that's when the issue of we don't want to put him on the stand came up because he and i don't believe that that is flushed out of the record every wrong presuming that th directly asked did any other touching take place besides the alleged assault she said no so even when she said we were squishing units here she wasn't considering whatever took place in nature inappropriate or not and she certainly didn't describe sitting on his lap caressing his jazz bertie style he was giving me physical attention or affection as a grooming behavior or something like that there's there's a vast difference