please call the first case please the court my name is grace classy and i represent the defendant frankly in a way mr green was opening the phrase three issues but for the purposes of this oral argument i will limit my just my discussion to the first argument whether mistake greenwood was denied a fair trial with alleged that he had sexually abused her in addition to testifying about the alleged incidents herself i g also testified to the statements that she made to these witnesses the statements were introduced under at seven twenty five weren't all of the statements cumulative yes and that's certainly a problem is well they're almost identical yes and that's again goes to the heart of the problem with their almost identical then you have pretty much repeating what she has already testified to which is the come in under this exception and we're saying that simply because there is a statute that advocates the common law prohibition against hearsay doesn't mean that they can all can and we still need to do a balancing test to more likely to believe something that is repeated over and over again and in this case we have a closely balance case where we have the victim's word against the defendant's wired and that's the only evidence there is no physical evidence it's just what she said versus what he witnesses right this is plain are you arguing that yes the defense attorneys so people who in our standard of review in this area is abuse of discretion is an f so no rational person we have to find to agree with you no we have here basically is the jury hearing i g s allegations ten times and ultimately that's the state's entire case and what we have is a buffer to sin and repetition and repetition and in this closely balanced case where we only have her word against his  no physical evidence and we're even the jury seemed a little doubtful about the veracity of her testimony because they come back with these seemingly inconsistent products they say yes on sexual assault for some for some dates and no one other dates but a roaring included fairy lesser first sexual abuse and that just is not consistent considering her testimony is the same about all of the events so clearly there's something that the jury is unsure about and the the consistent statements is that you just hear it over and over again and it's human nature to believe stuff if you hear it again and again and again and so we have here is this little girl who testifies and then five people who testify say exactly what she just  to suggest that you know she wasn't not a confident with witness i mean nothing no she couldn't describe anything that happened so ultimately what we have are these witnesses who are just repeating what she said she had no difficulty doing it herself and so what we have is a clear case of certainly all the child testimony is something that the jury would consider but i would argue like you said circumstantial evidence but we do know from meeting this record is that this was the custody between these two parents was contentious and i didn't herself testify that sometimes i'm angry at my dad sometimes i'm angry at my mom and if you look at the timing of her actual first outcry immediately before she even says anything about what her father may have done to her she says to her grandmother do you know that daddy got back together with stephanie and her grandmother has to reassure her you know that's something that happens with adults and that there's no mature is do honestly don't play with some of these things and here again his story i've gotten a better two for twenty five long and my one year old daughter for credibility and so we need to look at what this of course said in how the way was of the importance of allowing outcry testimony is not the complainants ability to adequately testify to the alleged incident there was no doubt that i she was able to testify clearly about what she said happened during these incidents so i'm just saying there needs to be a balancing test of prejudicial versus probative and as anderson cautioned that there may be cases where the  otherwise be afforded and in this case a nearly construed one fifteen dash ten would mean that we need to look also at the fact that these outcry statements also follow up far under prior consistent statements which is a unless it's there for the medical person i'm not saying that we need to say that five is too many but i don't think i decision saying that in this case this was overly prejudicial is entirely inconsistent with moss andersen which both  back they could be an instance where there is just too much of the same evidence coming before a jury such that they are overly persuaded by the repeated testimony by the repeated allegations of a complainant where it just is overly prejudicial to the defendant because a closely balanced case and because the jury is likely to believe it's heard over and over again  to section one fifteen ten the court held a hearing on the people's motion a month before the trial and the people's motion included the statements as told the four people that are the victim's mother the victim's grandmother who is actually the victim's great grandmother the representative from the department of children family and services and representatives from the child advocacy center the evidence was not closely balanced we presented a victim who testified her testimony was clear and convincing it was a corroborated by it was cooperated by her outcry statements and it was also cooperated by the circumstantial evidence of if there was any adequate safeguards because the statements were different here in fact it was on appeal to the court as the gatekeeper why why were four additional independent basis for admission and the court found as much excited utterance an outcry the court also found the court also found that the other time then there's nothing there's nothing showing that the court did not do that in this case importantly counsel argue the out the said and is frustrated this this this this issue and justice coming in is correct  the very next day after after the after the after the abuse happens she has an episode and she has an episode in therapy and the mother could see that she's upset takes a home and they have so what can i do to help you and the daughter says to me grandma and the first time the child's in rome with grandma she she has her first outcry that's that's all very very relevant on testimony different jury have the right the hear counts if the child has been interviewed by eight investigators she told them the same state stor statement to him and asked permission to do so and i'm not sure if they answered your question correct well i it seems to me that you know the number you know lies the prejudice the weight of the prejudice against the defendant this is a pretty big number eight is a bigger it's just the number that implies credibility to the jury is that fair the sepoy here it is not plano evidence to show that she had any bias for raising this raising these these allegations first the statement was consistent to the nurse her statement was consistent with the mother  probable and other statements were corroborating by the physical symptoms that she was having if she had only just begun to go to therapy and the episode that the therapy our victim was arriving years old when room when the abuse happened but her statement she was thirteen so her statement was not covered her statement was not covered by the statute so it was sold on council raises that point tell us you know briefly just a few quick points the state and its own argument says that i g s testimony is clear and convincing if that is the case we do not need multiple been closely balanced and how there was prejudice i think we can again look at the seemingly inconsistent verdicts by the jury why is there a guilty on sexual assault and run fans but not guilty on the other one her testimony is identical he there's clearly something that the jury is latching on to where they think that there is something off by something they're not absolutely sure about she is testimony and to have that doubt and then to have all these multiple witnesses testify identically to what she has just testif herself surely and suggest that maybe had we not heard all these multiple statements they would not have believed her again it's her her word against his and that's the entirety of the case and to look at if we're going to go look at one fifteen dash ten indication that they're afraid it would not be able to testify before a court the same way they were able to tell maybe loved ones or these people specifically trained to question them and so if that is the intent of the legislature we then also need to look at the fact that