likewise there's a number of statements in testimony very to defend his relationship with his mother statements that were made between them earlier in the day they have no relevance to the battery to the corrections officer  the correction officer and worker was around him crowd saying this is what happened and the mother testifying regarding what happened to her son contradicted  defendant's mother which they could consider and likewise the jury wouldn't have been able to see this videotape you know of him grab her i guess having a with these officers because there is a lot of even after like some of the it doesn't relate to anything really where he's being thrown into a cell so i think that certainly damages prejudicial and it can't be said that there wasn't a reasonable probability that the jury after a conviction on one or the other passed the perhaps this case against the mother was stronger whereas along in the case against dr a vice versa but we don't know because they were but the second part of that issue or a subset is even if the trial court improperly joined these charges which we don't believe that it did this severance issue is subject to a harmless error analysis and the state here can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that had there been separate trials the verdicts would have been the same if there has been separate i believe that the trial court correctly ruled that this was a comprehensive transaction had these trials been separate it would have command defense of self defense so his behavior within their power following the battery to the mother would have come in to show to show that one not just the battery the transport to the jail and the battery against that officer would have come in to show that defendant knew that he was committing an insulting or provoking period of time and if in a state of mind during that short period of time this wouldn't have come in for a propensity it would have come in for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed these offenses the state has the burden and the state has to meet its program and here where he's saying i i didn't do anything to my mother i was trying to calm her down and as far as the coffee over i didn't spit on the coffee nothing happened his state of mind  the defendant would like us to believe that that's what we have here that is not what we have here and that's why it's so important that the evidence team in this i'm trying trial again that's not a to earlier this is the battle against the mother didn't happen early in the morning and then had an encounter with an officer a leader in the evening the identity of evidence here leading the offenses we believe i behavior in the car well first of all his behavior as a man now as he kicks the door and then his behavior in the car when he's talking to the officer telling the officer that he believes that he should know even bigger arrested for this because obviously he thinks he didn't do anything wrong and then telling the officers that he then that they have on each the beast so there are links those two things this is a continuing transaction and the third factor comment that was this part of a and then you have defendant's testimony so yes it would be credibility determination but we believe that the evidence as far as the mother and the corroboration by the nephew was overwhelming and as far as the evidence against the officer we have three occurrence witnesses who testified and we have the videos so for these reasons we asked this court to find you have no other questions  you know what i do with the standard of review it was anyway but it's nice to see you run just like it's nice to see where if you're playing play here to raise it early on and point out that there was