in this case your honor the judge early on two occasions gave a very early broad limiting instruction as to how the evidence should be received and found the honor in this case the prosecutor mentioned nor less than seven times in his closing argument the evidence of the burglary you are charged offense your honor in this case we intend to argue first that the extensive use to suppress any jury concern that my client was mistreated my client said on video he wasn't he was too fine but again that videotape confession came almost twenty four hours later after he had  innocent and so that's the argument is not that he didn't do it it is that gosh it is so what he said in his confession is largely corroborated by the physical evidence of you know however so the concern is not false confession as it would be with many of these cases the issue is where his rights violated was his with the will was a voluntary given or was is a little bit of will since he is so slow overcome real life on the other hand you're either you know one thing as a defense attorney is that we weren't present what happened we were not present my client never included in the statement video statement that he had that he had sex it could have been for all we know it was following terri it could have been we don't know and we  killing going back to ok the other countries we're talking about the judge basically said that issues of defend his presence his intent and more than knowledge would be considered by the jury only for not going to purpose but this is only said that you're referring to the june twelfth was highly probative for the intent motive and identity in this case and i would actually direct this court two people versus church which is directly on point and supports you testified regarding the defendant's statement themselves there were only five witnesses aside from that who testified regarding the other crimes evidence that was mildred neal whose transcription pages  took up only four pages of the eight hundred seventy four pages of the trial transcript from opening statement to the jury finding of guilty officer turner whose took up only ten pages out of the eight hundred seventy four sergeant nichols was the evidence technician who processed the scene his it was only fifteen pages to the d n a experts together only took up ten pages i mean in total aside from the police officers who are testifying regarding defendant's given statement which was voluntarily and knowingly given aside from that only thirty nine pages of this entire trial was dedicated or apply to this other crime seven and it was properly alive while the a continuing hostility and volatile relationship and again i will direct this court's attention to people versus hurt which i submit to you is directly on point in her kirk the defendant killed his ex girlfriend and he killed his  girlfriend because he was angry over the break up and the people introduced evidence of the fact that he had committed prior cried bad acts against her after the breakup and one of the prior bad acts which is pertinent to this case was that he entered her apartment after they broke up and he stole her clothes and that that admission of that evidence was challenged on appeal and the supreme court said that evidence was highly probative and correctly admit it because it went to the motive the defendant's anger over the break up and that was the same reason that he stole those clothes it went to the identity of the murderer the fact that he had done this thing to this victim and the fact that it showed hostility continuing hostility towards the victim and that case is directly on point because what this defendant did to this victim on june twelfth is exactly what that defendant in her did with respect to stealing  he broke into this victims home the victim he was angry about because she was shielding her grandchild because she wouldn't give up information about her grandchild and soul as defendant confessed in this statement that's why he killed her because she wouldn't give me the information i wanted and that's the same reason he went in to the residence her residence not anybody else's residence not just to steal money he wanted to steal money from her the woman that was keeping her his grandchild from him and he did this he went in and he broke through the window and he stole money from or in retaliation it was the same motive anger over the lack of information that she was not willing to give up over their son and it showed the hostility towards the victim and the volatile relationship and it also showed the identity of the murderer in this case i mean the court properly exercised its discretion in this case and it weighed correctly the prejudicial versus the probative value and here i mean to face a plea again defendant's claim is that he was prejudiced because there was evidence well any evidence that is probably going to be admitted is always going to be prejudicial to the defendant that cannot be the standard also it cannot be the standard that we actually have to introduce evidence in order to support it we not only had to show that this crime occurred the residential burglary but we also had to show it was that this defendant actually committed and which is why we put on the witnesses that we did none of these witnesses in so far as the civilian witnesses aside from the officers and the assistan testify duplicative of each other i mean they testify to what they had to say they were in their route and that said and again i would note that this had this was a minuscule piece of evidence against the defendant in face of the overwhelming evidence that showed his skill not only the videotape statement but it was the semen found in the victim that he confessed to a sister i killed the victim he also there was blood the victim's blood on his hands and there was also eyewitnesses who saw him leaving from the house i mean and in face of that overwhelming evidence the other crimes evidence defendant's challenge on the voluntariness of the statement i mean the trial court probably found that the statements for voluntary it applied the correct test the totality of the circumstances here and that those circumstances showed that the there was no  was given miranda and that defendant did in fact have the ability to understand and waive his miranda he was twenty eight years old a convicted felon had experience with the criminal system as well as miranda he could speak read and write english and he was not mentally retarded yes he did have a reading deficiency but all of the rights were read aloud to him as well as before signing his waiver that waiver was read also allowed to him  the trial court had the opportunity to watch the most relevant facts here which was his videotaped statement to see how was he acting when he was given these rights and the trial court was viewed the videotape and showed and determined that there was no indication to the contrary that defendant was not understanding and actually waived his his miranda and point of fact defendant's own expert dr gilbert watched the video tape and admitted there was no indication in on that tape that defendant was not understanding and waving or waving his i right knowingly there was no credible evidence of coercion i guess there was a claim that the detective i held the gun but that was specifically rejected by the trial court and it was charged with determining that credibility determination and that determined determination should only be overturned by this court if it was manifest erroneous and it was not it was not of course that that the sphere he was not handcuff he was in custody for a little over twenty four hours but during that time he was only spoken to intermittently and there was nothing to indicate any lack of understanding or knowing waiver in this case and for those reasons the trial of course conclusion that the statement was voluntary and no only made i should be a here's people versus blue says that the defendant is a right to fair trial even if the evidence is overwhelming he will smith the evidence here is not overwhelming and contrary to what the status says said we counted one hundred twenty pages over the nine