he had an erection right right i guess the court ruling was important as i'm sorry it was the answer right i guess so even if the j s thread other times i think he did maybe i guess i tapping i don't know what it sounded like jacking off i guess i don't know and that's the sum total of that i submit she just says that cannot be enough for sexual gratification he says i think he was even assuming that maybe we can infer reasonably from that the defendant went into his room to get dressed maybe the trial judge understood th teenagers if they were teen years at the time they said he never spanked me both in the said he never spanked me so we compare that to the charge act we look and we see well this defendant sexually fifteen and twenty years old i understand there's going to be a child to disclose these acts when they happen but it certainly must weigh against them when they come forward in response to a newspaper ad and say oh yeah but he did these things to needs if you look at the record that doesn't make any sense if he said i didn't disclose because i was embarrassed obviously that would be a reason but i didn't and he didn't say that he said to protect my niece the other issues are said he gets the death penalty i understand if someone did this to me i'll maybe think the same thing but that shows a bit of miles about how it feels about the defendant but if so why did he go to his house for christmas after these back fifteen twenty years similarities i said much more heinous much more numerous and not not the same type of thing people spank their children it is not  act and there is nothing about the act absent the prior bad acts that one could call inherently sexual there's no erection masturbation story it is just out of this world so the other relevant facts and circumstances i don't believe there are any in this case it's these are very emotional cases i know as the court has great experience in going through the this is one know if there has to be a limit we can't just look at accusations made against a person because he's needed different and child it was trying to help him and we had a mother who talked about a lawsuit in office things and i don't want to argue those types of things before your honor's but i think this is a case where there's too much wrong prior bad acts couldn't independently beyond reasonable doubt before the evidence of other crimes is even admissible to corroborate it i would submit yes i believe that he intended the statute is not to fill in such a gap when it doesn't exist on the charge to act i believe the intent is when you prove it when a reasonable trier of fact can find all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt then if the circumstances of the statute are direction not matter because he doesn't i think you're honest point is he does not have to sexually gratify himself and he had the intent of sexually gratifying himself that would be enough and i said yes and i am correct there is still no evidence in the record that he any intent to sexually gratify himself he had this child there they would have been the state would have you believe he is a terrible filthy vile person who takes children and does  beyond that it didn't happen he went walked through it and went into his room and had to see it so i don't believe it was any intent to arouse and he had the child there i don't want to look too far afield but if he had an intent he could  this was in the defendant's home and there was no one else around he heard that he had a victim alone he came in from behind then pulled his pants and underwear down and spanked him for no apparent reason and it comes from both the kno sorry i'm trying to think of the the phrase i want to use here the fact that there is there was nothing to should not necessarily rely on his accidents of going into the bedroom and making noise consistent with what the victim believed was jacking off that is what he testified to he also he had  and i can't ever remember spanking in the presence of people or even thinking about whether it was fake in the presence of other people or whether i wanted to spare them the presence of other people or whether i wanted to exclude the presence of other people think i'm having a hard time accepting the fact that it's outside the presence of people especially when there's appears that there are people in the vicinity which was specifically looking at the public nature of the act here this was not a public there was no public nature of this action this was not a course of conduct that occurred there w have searched that that can be a consideration intent especially in light of cases such as wilson which was cited in our brief where you have a defendant who has the people who the trial judge found the following similarities the relationship between the complainants and the defendant the ages at the time of the alleged offenses the gender of the complainants they were alone with the defendant at the time of the facts and that there was inappropriate touching involved the people recognize the inappropriate touching varied from the complainant to complain and them he had spent more time with that is not unusual that he had opportunities to engage in acts that completed versus prejudicial and actually limited a substantial amount of the original he presented out that's the trial judge to recognize the fact that there was a period of years that found that there were similarities of facts in the cases he limited testimony that could be allowed and he believed that he was you want me to yes i am track you're asking me if i suggesting to you that the prior bad acts were of such a nature that they were for sexual gratification that it would be readily apparent in this case one of the problems that i see is whether or not this was done for sexual gratification so how how can you call related to unless you're saying that a sexual deviant is going to do everything that appears to be a possible sexual deviation is done for sexual gratification that's that seems to be the logic that the states applying in attempting to suggest there's a connection between what is obviously sexual deviancy and something good may or may not be sexual deviancy deviancy without any expert testimony or or witnesses who have some knowledge in the area of whether or not spanking children with their bare bottomed or not cause a sexual gratification showing the relevancy for and purpose to dealing with similar factual situations which is somebody who's a child who's apparently is the same gender lives in the house with him so works with everything that he does with there in that scenario would be deemed to be the legislature has explicitly allowed for the propensity evidence in certain sexual assault cases and create this case the judge did consider these threshold matters and did find where their worst similarity is noted where there were not similarities and that's why the legislature established the circumstantial is circumstantial evidence the victims for responds to the defendant and what i mean by bit is the fact that it he hid his cell phone the fact that he his mother said that he was more quiet about his relationship with the different defected he refused to take phone calls from the friend you know i mean there were several different things that you could look at this child and say something was quiet for any multitude of reasons and if the state could have proven those changes really mattered they should have delved into it more but i don't believe they could these are there are some wild speculation about why he may have his cell phone or if he was quiet or maybe something's going are true i believe it would be wild speculation to say something like this child is getting quite so we're going to figure it lends abusing him i don't believe that circumstantial evidence at all