with the last two words you just said self defense was his explanation of ho of page seven when jenkins let up granbury again attacked him with the knife he grabbed her hand holding the knife and held it over her head grand jury tried to grab the knife with  other hand cutting or self then they both sat on the couch and the knife went into granbury east chest ran very neatly gurgling sound and closed her eyes and died later on you talk about the fact that basically he said it just happened it was an accident so whatever initiated the initial struggle he says that the act that caused the death was not an intentional act taken to try to defend himself but rather an act it happened when they were struggling and it happened accidentally during the struggle he didn't make an affirmative attempt to try to strike out  her well if he had initiated the struggle and it still had happened like he didn't mean to kill her bites they were still struggling falls question of that but the reverse is not necessarily so that she attacks me and the act it causes the death is not evolution a but by his own testimony self defense it always has me an accident and he doesn't even know how it happened why do we care wh there to prove that someone is the aggressor but it only is it's applicable when there is a self defense well your honor if he is wo so whether or not he was defending himself from her attack or he was the initiator of the attack was still something something that the jury had to consider for determining whether or not he could be seen as culpable for her events were too remote that's pressure on us however if incidents over seven years old are routinely admitted as evidence of the person's character which he didn't really put any doesn't you even include the time for that the person is in prison so the actual behavior that speaks to the person's character to be well over a decade old this is a situation where you're not claiming to defend it was aware of these this evidence is that needed where there are conflicting accounts about what happened here is here there is no conflict is here about what happened well be the state presented testimony of a medical examiner who testified that some of the gran something just the use of the phrase defense of forms only means that sometime during the course of the struggle someone was trying to grab a knife or gun or the stake certainly thought self defense or not because really the defendant's own version speaks to the fact the dispute was not about the sexual act but about three i wanted didn't  consumption of the illegal drugs while he was out of the room that's correct your honor however he was charged with sexual assault so felony murder and felony murder so the jury had to make a determination th failure to allow the defense the right present these two other incidents involving the deceased person is it subject to the harmless cyril yes here in the state argues the evidence will go well overwhelming give the or allow the introduction of this evidence i don't believe so in this case your honor the all the injuries that the medical examiner describe you know to start with the issue of the fact that the seven year limit was really not anything that we see in any case law precedent well it remote that it was seven years prior to the murder almost to the day but also because that the evidence was completely unreliable there is nothing well let's just take it by ok you know you'd rather talk about the second aspect the first but i was i'd like to get an answer to your your view on putting aside your limitation especially in him in view of the fact that as mr carroll was alluding to when it comes to whether somebody has been teachable offense under is is it acceptable well and let me be clear i'm not trying to skirt skirt this issue at all but i would like the score to focus on is the case law doesn't just look at one element it doesn't just also consider the fact that the evidence was unreliable and we're not asking today in this court say that every excuse me but every kid every single case that the defense tries to bring up in your when the defendant brings up this other incident where he can't even in the proper didn't even say when it happened it happened sometime before the incident self defense and noted it all and the well i think there's a good number of cases where and list court has reviewed many of them one of the cases that you cite or just as a general rule other offenses that are close in time yes they have more pro there's no police reports there's no medical testimony to say that this woman's hand was quiet any of that required under way because it has to be some type of reliability witness who gets up there and submit to cross examination yes isn't that how fresh news usually tested and the fact that either it wasn't reported or wasn't taken seriously by the police or whatever how does that really bar the introduction of the testimony well i think like any other evidence it has to be relevant before comes when i'm talking about relevance we're talking about the adequacy of really the believability of it is i what you were referring to i guess there should be a threshold and it would have to include such things as a rest and a conviction not for not necessarily your honor it would have to sort of w remote right and i believe he also said that he didn't feel that it would assist the jury in deciding who the initial aggressor was not exactly in those words but to bad a fact which leads me to believe that he didn't believe it was relevant and tiniest bit of evidence presented by the defendant when when the defendant got up there inside i fear for my life even though he denied it's the police we knew that when the police initially questioned him even though even after his evidence in this case was overwhelming based on the medical examiner's testimony her thirty seven total external injuries including the injuries were knacked that caused her for to go artery and broke her vertebrae but also if the judge will let this evidence and they already open the door for the state to bring in the defendants he had a pending egger beat a criminal sexual salt case but the state used an aggravation at sentencing and