the rejected evidence could have reasonably affected the verdict and the review in court will not lose his will refuse to disturb the judgment were guilty shown beyond a reasonable doubt or where at the evidence came in a different result could not have been reached or to use the language pushing her to get her up that leaves this evidence of her violence to make that determination now the evidence of the pending criminal damage to property charges or nestle for the exact same reasons that the burning videos off of the civil it shows a person violent character trait of jessica's she attacked his vehicle in this house and criminal damage soprani it's basically aggravated battery gets a property it's by evidence of a violent nature the state has some language from in their brief from people b gilbert to stand for the proposition as one of the convictions would not have been admissible under which at trial seven or eight years later it's unknown whose property was damaged in that case or there's a relation between those parties the parties that are actually at issue in dover trial but in this case the jury should have heard that evidence particularly because the question of consideration from the government and starts on trial in exchange for stocks testimony against doubt and stubbs trial would be relevant to a credibility determination by jury and the of these cases far from harmless just like just a cunningham in the case of bar starts was the key witness and their credibility or lack thereof was crucial to the state in the stat case absent that person's testimony there's no evidence that even approaches overwhelming evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt which would be necessary for the or harm us so i propose that the evidence that pending charge is both admissible as evidence of justice person character trait for violence in a case the terms on which one was a violent aggressor but to property charge is admissible because it goes to credibility with a pending charge for the defendant in one case so it is another case against the same person was there any requirement that she testify against roy in this case and consideration felony charge i don't know she did plead guilty and got a second chance probation in that case which the prosecutor asked to agree to so seems like seems like a must in some situation but we don't know the point is we don't know because defense is not even allowed to inquire into that bias hearing on the motion in limine name so the fact that the evidence is barred is not a reason for why there's no record of the issue there's no record in the issue because the defense did not claim the pending charge on the criminal damage costs to leverage they did get to invoke the pending to you by this case we're following incident the victim was arrested for driving under the influence following the following stop which the stop happened right after the to the crime here the aggravated battery or the aggravated domestic battery so stout is actually distinguished moment grounds the issue of leverage as a separate ground for admission of this and mission of character traits that that is because that is not the that applies to any other purpose the allegation that cunningham continued to harass the defendant and would not disengage if that is alleged to be a character trait of cunningham that is sort of like it becomes propensity evidence essentially this is generally inadmissible so the only exception that we've got for it is if that acts constitutes a quote violent act and quote under lanch and under the gilbert case cited by the state criminal damage to property damaging a car ho citing the gilbert case ruled by one of the issues there was a prior conviction for criminal damage and that was not allowed in this lynch evidence it's not considered a violent acts and there's not a lot of analysis in that case but i haven't seen a case that says that simply damaging someone's property constitutes a violent act for purposes of which so when the state does concede that it was admissible for the purpose issue of who was the aggressor i'm not sure if the defense is confused the nature of the state's contract concession on that point the state did not concede that the evidence would have been admissible for defense perception because this was an incident that happened after the charged aggravated domestic battery so therefore it could not have been relevant to establish his perception of the time of the offense because it didn't even happen yet so the state has not conceded that relevance it doesn't go to the reasonable notice of of the defendant's behavior here it goes simply to the issue of who was the aggressor and because the evidence on that point was conflicting it would have been admissible of events in that the defendant claims that she had him purse where as she testified cutting him testified that he and the car so even though there is a dispute on that point and the lynch evidence would have been i would have informed the jury on that one issue the issue of who in there is the aggressor is only simply one of the several elements of the self defense claim that has to be disproved by the state and in the case where the strangling which is the allegation here corroborated by a photo of the bruises on the victim's neck so this is not simply he said she said it's the defense wants to score to believe this is actually a case where the victim's testimony was strongly is likely to cause great bodily harm or death and therefore the a limitation on self defense kicks and which means that the defendant's own conduct has to be necessary to prevent imminent woman by a two hundred fifty pound man an eighty nine pound woman has piers fists is not justified by self sense because the defense conduct constitutes essentially deadly force in the parking lot of the model and then a toast run you on into the roadway and there is a high rate of speed and soon on the interstate the problem with the issue though there would be is that the defendant passed testify because he h be completely exonerating so he has to testify that the reason why he strangled her for example is because she was driving at high rates he done the interstate and that he felt it necessary to incapacitate her for example or something like that if he doesn't testify to that then that's not a self defense type claim because that would justify great force likely to cause great bodily harm or death because he has to subjectively believe this and he has to then testify to that subjective belief and that subjective belief also has to be objectively reasonable and so that's why the record doesn't really show that his self defense claim could have been sustained the jury could have had a reasonable doubt  buy the state is arguing that the this isn't over which essentially an overwhelming case that the defendant could not have been justified no reasonable jury would have found him justified the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he did testimony which is totally different objection and of course hearsay testimony from an officer about statements from morgan britt collective is part of an official investigation of an offense aren't missed it is admissible  understanding is that the fed may introduce the alleged evidence regardless of whether he learned of it cheaply in a situation where it didn't happen that only applies to the issue where there is the conflict in the evidence as to who was the aggressor and that was the situation here where there was a conflict in as to who was the initial aggressor so therefore it could have been and should have been admissible on that sort ground but it does not go to the defense perception because we're talking about a matter that didn't even happen and it terms of the time  other people as long as it's a balancing act because when a defendant learned that it can be admitted on the issue of who is the aggressor when the evidence is conflicting on that point that's the limited nature of the state  but is a very very different situation when there are the the criminal effects you see the criminal charge the bad acts are so nearly contemporaneous as opposed to have seven or eight years later and can still parties i'm  becomes really evidence of violent behavior when it's between the exact same parties it keep going after each other can spend some time talking about the the size differential between the two and how therefore no reasonable jury could come to a conclusion self justified first of all i deny obvious that the testimony from both sides accounts for the markings there are photographs i mean i was just reviewing right my factual basis if it was in there but my understanding is that the case any high restriction of evidence from the jury that would help them decide which of these people from the truth are which is the initial aggressor who continues to be an aggressive crafter researcher would have been necessary to present him with a fair trial so we