though there was extensive argument by households in the trial for back to find it was a very much intending to limit the evidence that all they wanted to present was the conviction and no testimony regarding the underlying facts which is so while i i don't know i don't believe so as i didn't look i mean i don't have the aggravated battery statute from fifty five years ago but in looking at what an aggravated battery entails today examples of aggravated battery and they all are  circumstantial evidence as to the issue of who was the initial aggressor and that's why mr martinez was offering the evidence later provides for two purposes the first of which is not a fight with which is if the defendant has now learned of this violent character that  the analysis stopped as she got out of her car and that was it she had no right to defend herself physically even if mr aren't taking after her physically we don't know how they have transpired we know she got her vehicle to talk to him that's as much as we know that's as much as just consistent between the defendant in this around her and say anything they were after has been conflicting and in fact you know mr archie's testimony was now was not only lack defense of the burning remains on the state that confrontation and initial confrontation was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt the fact that she was not acting in self defense was not prove beyond a reasonable doubt mr on to his testimony  can even see his t shirt or the pocket so how she would know one of there was a teacher pocket underneath this button sweater and if there was a pan in there it's unbelievable the other part of that is that he found th she was a candidate for court supervision i believe the court over look this is the story of her useful citizenship and you had plenty of testimony at the sentencing hearing regarding how her career was affected how she was financially harmed and how she had to take on during those are the faces of the defendant sustained injuries he's still being title to defend himself in i mean better conviction for the defend why why why does age make that big of a difference when you're talking about plenty of this that this is this is a character trait that this person still  where there is a requirement a requirement that a lot of self defense get issue and that there be actual evidence of self defense that could be that only certain crimes crimes of violence are proper to invoke under lynch and  and just to go with the argument about it being a perk per se rule in fact without all of that he's decided by the state rejecting lynch and the standard of review they were cases where the courts found lynch wasn't properly invoked it wasn't that they prejudice and found it not to be admissible in yemen after district case the statement it was statements made in your management counseling counseling about a fire road rage evidence there was no necessarily conviction there and one of them was that it w interest in the verdict and because they have an interest in the permit their credibility with the jury is an issue of course they have a stake in the game so that the defendant had to ask why it's so important to a lot of this too but i wouldn't say so that the defendant has a right to present evidence from a disinterest is going to be deemed to at fault here he knows that he's got a primary reason to be very well meaning that lends to his credibility as to how he he's been here before how should i actually that i'm not the one who's charged with the defendant never being in the situation wasn't