here there was he was not allowed to present any evidence to corroborate his claim and it's similar to a defendant testifying discretion because the defendant was not precluded from presenting a defense in fact to present a self defense and imperfect self defense theory the defense argument is that as part of that this defense the trial court he excluding certain segments of evidence and that would be a pure evidentiary claim reviewable for abuse of discretion the defense still loses though to maintain under a did over review because the occur and that it caused the escalation in tension in the household in the weeks preceding the murders the state never contested the fact that the abuse occur if the state contested the fact that the abuse had occurred the defendant might have a better argument but the record doesn't show that that argument that the state ever from took an argument that this abuse didn't occur therefore his story cannot it made sense the state's argument with respect to the defendant story was that it didn't make sense given the severity of the crime and the circumstances under which the crimes occur again there was no contention that the abuse didn't occur and so that aspect of nicole's testimony would not have bolstered anything with respect to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim  excluded there's no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different guilty verdicts were still assured and there's no undermining of confidence in the outcome of the jury's verdict charit sentencing no your honor it couldn't have his extended term sentences were based on the brutality of the crime and the age of the victims the fact of a prior firearms conviction would not play into that and there's nothing in the record indicating that the prosecutor to the best of my recollection reference that firearms offense at the sentencing hearing where these convictions these crimes were committed with nice the defendant maintains that this was a prejudicial component of the trial because it hit reduces credibility in the eyes of the jury when viewing the record as a whole however the fact show that the defendant's credibility by the time the jury retired to deliberate was already pretty much well shot the physical evidence as the court see his has mentioned here any claim that it was a self defense case the defendant claims that his uncle sixty years old accosted him with a knife his uncle was wearing boxer shorts no shoes  he claims that his eighty three year old grandfather who is just recovering from a cancer diagnosis who was unable to hold tonsils had to use furniture to get around a room to hold on to and who was wearing a cos bag also brandished a knife and tried to pull him off charles junior the defendant claims that he waved the knife around wildly randomly blankly but i encourage the court if it hasn't to look at the autopsy photos of these victims showing that all of the winds were to the head to the neck and to the upper chest and the most serious wounds which caused a sixty ation and blood loss fatal blood loss just happened to occur at the the defendant's post murder conduct also reflected on his credibility the defendant had some superficial cuts on his hands i might also know that the the two victims had significant defensive wounds on their saunders there's a nearby police station he didn't call he decided to just leave but before he left he washed up changed his clothes and apparently put the knives in a bag wrapped it up and put it that this does not indicate  the hand were all he sustained given his description of the severity of this fight because it wasn't a fight it was st remember and there were no mitigating circumstances the car and drive two blocks three blocks to his dance house the victim's daughter and sister and confessed to her exactly what has happened she wasn't trying to hide it all what th to be treated for his injuries and she called nine hundred and eleven so i don't think at all that his reaction or his actions after leaving the house support to anybody  with the state's closing argument where they call him a liar because of the commission and they say how do you know he was lying or how do we we know that he's not telling the truth is because the conviction but it shouldn't have been used for any reason or any purpose and definitely practice that there was no evidence that happened because he hadn't been charged with that but that cracked or convicted of it so they did interests absolutely contested that it happened