we raised three issues in the briefing today i'd like to touch on i'd like to focus on the first issue reasonable doubt also touch briefly on the second the arms of the statute in this case during a five thirty am parole search an by any other evidence can you know there was nothing to contradict her testimony so here we have no actual possession as i said there's a two bedroom apartment i rebutted testimony that mr mccary had a roommate and the gun was hidden in the apartment you can see what it's there in and it can be joint ok so that's a two part question so i answer both parts of the aisle separately and that's certainly the state's argument that cohabitation establishes control over the entire really whether there was another person living there and at the time that the police went to the wall it was actually within the violation or if there was a probation search just the standard her patients are told when they got the the state that mr singleton lived in the apartment and that he worked night and that a minute i'm contradicted are you actually saying that when someone puts in evidence that that suddenly means the fury must conclude that  what you're saying and so i'm saying that the state was unable to contradict miss adams testimony they were unable to impeach her testimony as to whether or not mr singleton lived in the apartment and they were unable to rebut her testimony the theory would decide whether or not relationship although they no longer lived together what are you really asking us to weigh this morning no i'm not i'm asking you to wait two to review the evidence under the constructive possession and here the  in other words is it is it frequently found that it will say i knew it was there or is it something that the jury or the judge will have to are based on everything they hear right and the state is required to crimes evidence is generally inadmissible so the illinois supreme court held that such evidence over persuades the jury which might convict the defendant only because he or she is a bad person deserving person and this is the perfect  this perfectly encapsulates what you're arguing that the jury rejected this rejected miss adams testimony and rejected the defense because here the interplay between the arms of this will criminal statutes purpose and it of being armed this is the prejudice inherent in it and not only were they told about one prior felony and i think what you're distinguishing the old chief case and walker where the felonies were not and certainly that's true the felonies were not named here however the rationale and old walker and and sorry old chief and walker illustrate the gravity and danger of of the prejudicial impact of the disclosure of these prior offenses and they provide support to mr murray curious claim that this prejudice outweighs the state's interests and in acting the statute so while the state was met with you know there's two beds there's there's two bedroom and no actual possession and ms and ms allen's testimony that there is a room and that he lives in the smaller bed and even though and the jury is presented with evidence that the gun is hidden it's in an opaque bag in the roommate room they are also at the same time being told that mr mecurio isn't armed have visual criminal from the beginning of trial all the way through to the end and the state capitalizes on this as they're able to by calling him a two time convicted felon i said yes the evidence that they're told along with this but the name of the statute they are told that he's an armed to the triple criminal which means that he's officially armed and the a bit silly crim commits crime this is over persuaded the jury on the overly persuasive and unnecessary only prejudicial to the defendant however those cases of the prior cases only nominally adams adams yes adams and davis adams allen davis yes those are the cases you're correct listening to cases we address those in the group and we acknowledge that this argument has not met with success however when this case has been addressed by those cases the prejudicial element has only been nominally addressed in those cases  see what you're saying and you know it is important to know that this is the search happened during the summer time and the other bedroom was much smaller so it's certainly possible that the back would have been moved out into the living room because this adams is no longer living in the apartment and that's a much smaller think he's been caught up in the criminal justice system before i mean the jury knows that if this is a parole search if you're operable are you going to have your gun out meal very again i don't know the answer to that i i think the answer clear that if you're  they know how to establish constructive possession none of these papers were tied to that and there's no evidence that the police picked up a single paper in that room that had mr rick perry's name on it theirs and nor were the shoes thing well ski is the best case on these facts there the police conduct a search in a basement apartment the mom of the defendant tells the police my son you know he we stay share this apartment together that the defendant lives in the basement apartment and that the mom said that this other son lived there too and on those facts this work determine that where there is this where there's a shared apartment with the brother and following mostly said that when there is no corroborating evidence tying the contraband to the defendant showing control and knowledge to the defendant in the place where the contraband is found that's insufficient evidence to  constructive possession so these points that we've talked about demonstrate conclusively that the state failed to establish that mr mcewen constructively possessed again it was wrapped in an opaque gray bag hidden in the laundry basket under a bunch of laundry in statute is unconstitutional all right thank favor but this is not the standard jackson v virginia establishes that a reviewing court must view the evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution but that includes drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the state and justice mcbride it is true think i think in in a reasonable doubt case the most important thing is to look at the evidence here and follow the standard every every reasonable doubt case is significant and we have and what's important is like the jury trials a termination here of the jury found incredible adam's testimony and though it may not have it may be rebutted the jury is still charged with the duty to evaluate her demeanor as well as her potential bias and the jury here knew that felicia adams was biased because she was defend his long term girlfriend and therefore had a motive to lie and if you look at her testimony it's unbelievable it doesn't ring true she claimed that she lived with  and david singleton roommate for eight months in a very small apartment but she had no idea she had she didn't know much about singleton she had no idea one single time have been in that he did he correct correct and if you look at our testimony they had a reason to again she knew nothing about singleton should know where he worked what type of work he did she claimed that she never really spoke to him even though they were alone should meet if they were alone and occasions during that period of time and just so claimed that during those eight months in their very small apartment she never got had the opportunity to look into that second bedroom and see that he had no furnishings that there were no bed so apart from his name adams knew nothing about the so called roommate and so your honour's adams testimony moreover was contrary to human nature you would know the basics about your roommate in aa if you lived with really doesn't provide any basis to overrule this precedent at bottom defendants due process claim is founded on the common law grohl that evidence of other crimes is not in this role to show a defendant's propensity to commit an however there were your honour's is one of common law origin it's not a constitutional magnitude and as spencer recognize the legislature is free to abrogate this rule and it has a right to to do so and domestic violence cases and sex offense under prejudice was avoided the state stipulated to the fact that the fan and had been convicted of prior qualifying offenses so the jury to know that those prior offenses was he used that smaller room really a storage there was no furnishings that suggested that it was being used as a bedroom by another occupant there was no bad no dresser no television no chair no dice but that but on the floor inside the closet there were boxes containers of paper and a pile of clothes man and the basket were eventually the guy behind was the gun was hidden and found by the agents and there was only a few articles of clothing hanging and hangers in the classic and although there was evidence that there may have been a shoe box there were no shoes in that room absolutely no shoes no shirt no evidence of any shoes and also showing that it was used at a storage room right in front of the closet there was what appears to be the top contrast you look at the fence row it was it looked lived in it looked at occupy it had a bed with bed sheets a comforter and pillows there was a window with mecham curtains there was a fan your the bad there was a wardrobe a new dress or with men's clothes piled on it and the closet was nearly full with clothes hanging on hangers the apartment and therefore work at that point to find it have the opportunity to hide the firearm and he also had access he was the only one to the second bedroom he was the only run in the common at the time and even through the testimony bedroom defending her also had the moat it a motive he was aware that under the terms of his parole that he cannot possess a firearm and he knew that if you was caught with a firearm he'd be in violation of his parole and he could be sent back to the right i totally agree and i think under the standard in jacksonville is virginia and collins that the evidence here fully supports the defendant the jury's credibility terminations here and they clearly rejected the existence of this so called witness and for work for the reason stated i would ask that this court affirm defendant's conviction for being and  you're not you're not here to reject the credibility determination of the jury but you are here to evaluate the conclusion and in the science and this court rejected the conclusions of the finders of fact in those cases because there was shared space and there was no corroborating evidence that the defendant had control or knowledge well talking about those cases and particularly another one in your brief where it control i'm sorry ok no but aren't you haven't you suggested that there's that we have to be what you're saying we should be lewd without any question that cases that you've supported basically say where there's joint control if the jury in this case concluded there was no joint called where are you going with your argument they rejected the argument that this there was another person that lived there we can't go outside and say this is a case where another person lived there well it's not clear that the jury did reject that the jury may well have believed that mr singleton lived at the apartment and that they shared all of the state  state's theory is that this was a storage room right they say that this storage room was really untidy the mystery of mr i mean that the state of the two separate bedrooms itself suggest that there was another person living there because mr  mr maturing was going to have control over the entire apartment and that that was his storage area that he would keep it in the same fashion that he kept just that so and adams you know ms they point out that ms adams said that in no way impossible her failure to be intimate with mr singleton does not mean that mr singleton was a ghost rigid not exist but the jury could have easily concluded it certainly not and that's the problem is that you're going to end it so then   no evidence of a roommate and no testimony of an intimate and you lose yes all right ok yes there is no i mean there's well when i go there's nothing for something else you wouldn't ever make an argument that that  person didn't i can't comprehensibly are answer your question in the absence of facts you know in a different case in this case when there is evidence that there was another person living in the apartment i think it's quite i don't think that it's unethical for me to make an argument that the other person that there's evidence of the other person and that the other person occupied that room that the gun that is found in that room hidden secretly the launch of the person who is  end does not incorporate or acknowledge their holdings or reasoning necessarily can't because it happened before them but if you look at spencer in contrast to the old sheep in walker there has been a marked change in the united states supreme court view prejudice however we compare that with the language of the old sheep there's a specific acknowledgment the propensity evidence certainly carries the danger of unfair prejudice but a jury may generalize that character onto  under the united states constitution as interpreted by the united states supreme court also in spencer there was only one prior conviction in two of the cases one was a prior birder case and one was a federal bank robbery case and all those priors were names to the jury a practice that the united states supreme court subsequently banned an old chief and walker which we didn't have here you know they were not but there were more than one offense named and again he was called an arm triple criminal and he's facing a gun charge so telling the jury that he's armed and these individual criminal and then asking them to decide whether or not he had this time it's unfairly and unnecessarily prejudicial to the defense so for