brief is we stayed on page fifty nine dollars of our brief we assert that the prior condition was never raised by the prosecutor in closing argument as a basis for considering the defendant's credibility is counsel points and his reply brief  attorney did actually point out that the defendant's prior condition for i'm awful use a weapon by felon should be considered by the jury is an indication of credibility so i apologise for the air but in acknowledging but that doesn't mean  the defendant's rights were violated to such a degree that he is entitle to a new front in the question here and there are issues i could begin with the issue is was the trial court's ruling authorizing impeachment by prior conviction with his prior due w by a felon conviction in abuse of this question at the time that it was made and at the time that was made the case law indicated that contrary to what counsel says that a prior felony ojudu you do no mention of that particular prejudicial the time of sentencing instead the my recollection of the court's findings at sentencing is that he was focused upon the facts of the case the facts of the other crimes cases in the types of that specifically said or that even indicated that it would be improper to utilize a you don't believe by following for purposes of impeachment or even for every nation unless the defendant had vacated the earlier conditions all right and i know was an element of the u w about a felony conviction in that case because the earlier interview w was foiled under eval are the state could not meet their burden of proving the u w felony in this case improper aggravation it is to examine the record and determine whether or not the improper information had an effect on the outcome of the proceeding or had an effect on the sentence itself it is our position that based upon the record here if it didn't if this court disagrees it's it here is a startling statement to read from the outset it is a dramatic flourish that i don't believe was necessary the question however before the court is doesn't amount to pla near is that such a clear and obvious error and i measure of the fine can reach that point in this one because one of his law that existed prior to today or even today is that it does recognize th  counts of aggravated sexual assault in every kidnapping in was told that there was sexual penetration going between the defendants penis in the victims in so therefore the jury knew that this was a rape there was no question that they learned that this was a rape and so being told that the defendant is a rapist while certainly again i wish it had been said wasn't something that was outside the understanding of the jury even at them moment and never really changed them because as we establish throughout the entire trial the evidence showed that the defendant was a rapist he repeatedly raped the victim in this case and he repeatedly raped the victims in the two prior other crimes of these cases there's nothing that you can draw from consistent with the report that was issued because the questions were asked were was or not was or knife that was being utilized against the victim and was she brought to the car in that's what the report says yes the report does say ruling was correct on there when he denied the motion for to dismiss the originating charges in regards to the other aspects about the presumption of innocence defendant has created a an amalgam of arguments whether that the trial court asked the jury if they agree with him excepted the force their principles all of which were properly identified including the presumption of innocence in the so the error that occurred was that the court didn't say except in understand the the court was active we know the trial attorneys were active in that it was properly taken here to ensure that if i'm here for a trial and that's what happened in this case and then finally in terms of the statement regarding the defendant sitting there smugly but fairly testified in this case he put his demeanor into evidence he asked the jury to consider his truthfulness and credibility we are allowed to comment on his credibility his demeanor in the exact same way as we are any other witness now we know purty purty ruled that it was improper for the court to instruct the jury to consider is demeanor while sitting at the table an instruction from the courts to the jury as to how this considers i mean not  certainly cannot tell the jury what thoughts are in his hit his head as you sitting in the witness stand so for those reasons also i would ask this court granted a new trial or the last relief we've asked thank you