events that they choose to believe would be the one that would direct their bird my client great reminder sr in self defense case in that context was unable to present some of the most compelling evidence of the of the port victim's violent testimonies in particular how how how it done in my junior my client's adult son had only a few days before this incident attacked his girlfriend and her to a bed taking a cell phone from from her hand and few weeks before that gregory minor jr in fact had actually called the police on himself to have him self taken into custody because he was afraid of what is the violent tendencies might do to others the day after he called the police on himself then we'd end up in the same place in terms of this court's kind of review because we'd be reviewing it for plain air i'd note also that it is that under under the lynch framework of physical violence amounting to a crime isn't for evidence to be admitted under lynch instead it's simply a question of the of the victim's prior violent conduct well has to be sufficiently violent and aggressive to warrant a nation under much right that is correct you still is there the analysis of the need to injury to his place that's a lot more remote time well that's a lot more consistent with pollution stuff about violence and how we injured  truth casey stated that he was screaming at her and was close enough to her that she could move from the bed in which she was simply asked for the not get his physical contact she indicated no he just got close to my face so when you say to me i take it you also have casey's testimony about the kind of rest that junior made toward her a few days before where he said that he was going to lose it and that his he wasn't going to like what what she saw that w the violence i would submit that i would agree with that your honor that it would be arbitrary or fanciful to say that this wasn't a demonstration of junior's propensity for violence especially in light of the court actual reasoning the court reasoned that you know on the space on the state's argument that casey somehow instigated the need of being trapped in the bed having the phone being taken from her hand because she questioned junior her boyfriend over these text messages that's not i don't believe that simply question if somebody is sufficient to instigate the kind of threatening behavior that junior then show toward casey of the court below also thought for some reason that it was too remote time when it was only two days before i believe the brief slight delay from the first district that discusses how two years before in time was not too remote this is some of the most proximate jury as a question of who they choose to believe and we have clear you know perfectly plausible conflicting testimony between the complaint in the defendant the case in this case where jr says that senior song first sr says that junior swung first they pursued themselves through the building when they get to the threshold of the apartment senior testifies that that's when junior takes up a boxing stand stance and punches him again in the head and then they were interrupted by jonathan williams when they're wrestling over the knife now under the framework of clay cases like people be mailer and together case from the first district this is the kind of confused completing testimony the defense testifies is perfectly plausible these are things that can happen that renders a case closed the balance and given the nature of the evidence yuri error in this case that it will go straight to the question of what are what exactly is junior's propensity for violence violating his constitutional right to present about evidence and said he's he's challenging a ruling by the judge under rules of evidence not the rule that in itself so therefore it this is reviewed previous discretion and to me and he primarily seems to rely on an argument made by the prosecutor to the jury about which version the jury would believe is directing the verdict but this court has a duty to review the judgment itself and review the evidence under plain error review to was not really a completely it's a case of contested credibility because of the fact that in the hallway confrontation there was not this overriding conflict of the various stor question of who is the aggressor in a different confrontation that is the one the defense bedroom and of course after the defendant chases the victim out of the apartment with a knife then goes back in to check was in the offer of proof some of the stuff he did know that there had they have been quote fighting which did not say he does it will fight just maybe arguing and that she got an order of protection which does not necessarily depends on a physical violence so those are things that the senate knew is that why junior was at his apartment but he did not know the specific facts necessarily that's not established so therefore the question as to the impact of  the reasonableness of his actions is not quite so clear because he doesn't necessarily know all the facts he's trying to admit two cases testimony and he was permitted to testify about the facts about that incident that he did  question then becomes the trucker's discretion in terms of this being cumulative which evidence but the lynch evidence being not violent enough to constitute lynch evidence and these are arguments the defendant also has to overcome in order to prevail asked them what happened quote he got close to me and hit me in the head i pushed him against the wall but then he says first before that happened so now we have to unprotect this to find out what was the exact sequence the first physical contact according to defendant's testimony went he grabbed my hand and he was trying to hold onto my hand wrist he was trying to close that knife on my fingers so we had the defendant left his apartment went and walked down the hallway with a knife approaching junior who was standing there and refusing to leave the defendant's borders for him the heat so this is aggressive conduct by the defendant he is trying to get to defend the victim to do something and leave he has a night in the night out because the first thing that happens is the victim tries to grab that knife which is something that a person can do to protect themselves against someone who's the costin them with a knife approaching them with a knife or causing him and ordering them something that they don't have to do so to rely on that is saying that this means that hitting close to him and hitting him in the head which she says it was hitting him again here of course that's after  says it didn't work for him so essentially he could not get the knife away from the fence and so then his some in the ear gets close to him and hit him in the ear that's only after unsuccessfully trying to get the knife away so he's relying on his getting close to him and hitting him is not the beginning of the second confrontation this is only after the defendant approaches with the knife and the victim unsuccessfully tries to get the night where the sequence of even neighbor that approached and heard some stuff and was sort of seen some things so there's some different perspectives but none of that is really material because approaching someone with a knife out and ordering them to do something is aggressive behavior it it takes away the right to self defense and that is even on top of what happened inside the apartment itself shortly before the state side of the thompson home some cases thompson was a case where there was a fight inside a place  defendant testified to he was not protected by the law self defense that's the huddleston case you seem to abandon the coral scene left the apartment he was chased out at knife point and he stands down the hallway at that point to defend it became the grass or by following seem to the door here we have been following him out not only through the door but past the door and out later into the hallway with a knife and so at that point defendant cannot invoke the right of self defense just by such acts and this is not a close case this is not a case where there was that was junior state of mind and the judge thought it was too remote so in other words he's still agitated like two days later after leaving casey's apartment and moving in the judge thought not that that was somehow not relevant reason to to admit that evidence and they offer proof so for those reasons i say request support to affirm the conviction and i would entertain any questions t equals my clients a fifty four year old insulin dependent diabetic who needs a second the replacement has one i know all the more reason don't approach someone with a knife at all but he's managed to get him out and so is it reasonable he's going to do with the minor how sort of a few days later he was trying to come back until the you know and then casey had to call the police on him again this is you know that kind of evidence would show junior's certain propensity toward a really instigating these disputes and instigate this fight and i know that the state's framework of trial and the record supports a different interpretation acts that this isn't really true disputes that this is a single ongoing dispute that begins with that begins with the wrestling in the bedroom moves through the apartment junior's briefly outside that apartment door the door is closed it's probably a matter of seconds with that and then senior goes it goes into the hallway and they rustle in the records unclear as to exactly what side of the apartment threshold they are