hours but we have the testimony of the woman who worked at the shelter that he didn't just drive by he slowed down at least enough to cause her to notice him and made eye contact correct that's true but that's still insufficient for this reason there was no evidence that is he was approaching the woman shelford he slowed down any more so event he had been driving already it was merely that when you drove by he drove by it at a slow or very there was more traffic and a half points set up but i'm sure that someone has to basically second guess the jury didn't they have the right to basically determine the credibility of the evidence and is there anything improper with them saying well we know she was there they have had this argument he ended up there he slowed down to whatever extent was explained in the evidence and we choose to believe that he knew she was in area and that he was surveilling i would respect y disagree because the and currents the jury is permitted to draw must be reasonable prices not coincidences that could happen to any person driving by anywhere where is spouse might be and in this best place have a sign posted we are a best place for it's a woman shelter or something that would put a person on notice who testified on his own that he did not know what it was that might be different sure enough a bike ride by be the store in a small out it's got its name but this is a place where there was no evidence it had a name or a posting and some woman shelter i would suspect we don't come for you to just start with this question is based on my own experiences i grew up at it's out about the size of a school and a town that size people just know what things are where they are i mean is driving everything to come out to give a closer look at the true welsh when she observed the car riding and the slow rate of speed in adverse weather conditions all of which was not normal it's not normal that she would be out there no evidence that he knew she was there no history of her family therapy or that would be noticed to her husband she apparently says she's going somewhere else and no direct testimony that he wasn't checking on his  there on the second issue we presented the review basic to say the very instructions the argument i'd like to focus on is the failure to define the term a motional is emotional distress we all understand what it is for what level of emotional distress is required for a conviction i can have emotional distress if i get a phone call you know what telemarketer level of the stress that is important and that's why the legislature in my humble opinion saw fit to define significant emotional distress more specifically significant mental present and i'm arguing that the state didn't have evidence on the first prop then you're saying that when we look at a reasonable person standard do we have to consider all the circumstances under which that reasonable person found themselves in well let's assume jury should have been required to acknowledge and to acquire the standard of significant emotional distress not any not minor not emotional distress that is not rise to the level of significant emotional distress as  statute clearly lives in the exercise free speech or simply this otherwise lawful in the starting statute so not only are not substantial number of applications there aren't any you don't even have to look outside of the pretty common knowledge so this is more than a parent teacher conferences this is more than talking to the teacher briefly a classroom or in the principal's office or something like that this all of these add to rise  individuals otherwise and adversarial relationship between them one is it from all the fan and the other is a victim of an alleged crime doesn't mean it's of no consequence that she can get financial aid out allegedly did to his wife resulting in these severe emotional distress and if he is there did in a criminal case he will be collaterally of stock in a companion civil lawsuit that the trial the  divorce judge will apportion to her and she could pursue their it should be fish in a barrel of that point in time is clara only a sop to claim he did it was for emotional distress because he will be found guilty beyond reasonable dou possibility in the words of the person you're having your cross examined here sarah little are you thinking about this is is this a matter of considered so that it's more i was required to make an offer of proof with regard to evidence that has been barred you don't have to do that moment but you need to ask the court to make an offer of proof of this court does not require well that same or how does it get around the language and people