the passage of a certain amount of time whatever it is odd the forward dating relationship can never support the charge for domestic violence i would suggest that that legislature should enact something very motion filed by the state to allow this evidence you know there was what was the basis that was claiming that it was going to be relevant for that and with that there was a prior dating lation ship you saying there  testimony additional let me let me posit that mr gray greatest self defense claim that was he claimed that he the incident she told that same detective the incident happened one thirty am in the back happened around seven or seven thirty am and after the incident instead of seeking help she walked right by a present dating relationship was through an objection to the people's lotion to admit evidence of other crimes because he did not do what he needed to do and the basis for this were to find that's what he needed to do could actually properly we look at this question look at the evidence that was a doozy and determined based on evidence whether or not there was present dating relationship between the parties but don't we ed the problem is that because the objection was in interpol's the status either just on what is provided by the statute which is either a task or a president even relationship so there was no development of a is improv and we rely on people versus mostly for that i wish it were the defendant who was wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the u w statute and so far as cases because you have the mass relationship because the legislature recognizes that it wants first of all they want to attack people from the results of somebody has been in a relationship with someone else so you don't start at square one when you come with the past relationship to the present time that are different and started  disturbances who fall responded almost immediately after the incident occurred when you look at the first incident there is no question and so we're looking at the think that is in keeping with the united states supreme court cases where i am and which the defendants rely on it's a situation where the victim says everything's ok nothing's happening and then the police pers was looking at the primary purpose and they were looking at the ruby and the police officer now subsequently have people versus brian which tells you it's a combination of as well as the intent of the person who was asking the question no matter what the score it uses these police officers or they are responding to an emergency situation  was and immediately instructed the jury that they were not to consider the fact that that identification had been made and it was handled you have a very active judge who was engaged and making rulings and reconsidering the admissibility of this and making a very good record for purposes of appeal as to what was and wasn't before this jury so and then as a final claim that all you have to do is look at the victim's testimony that's not the way that it works the defendant had led a defense of self and he had essentially admitted that he stabbed the question was whether  his claim self defense and his self defense claim wasn't even set out in the proper fashion from the onset based on nine one one so given all of the evidence that was presented in this