interview was so to prevent the admittance of the nine one one tapes which involve the youngest daughter polly nine one one talking to the police that her oldest daughter was being molested in this case the major issue at play is the actual knowledge of the sexual abuse going in this video that it was allowed to be shown does not address this and that most will show shows the the side shows this is as evidence that could have easily been brought out and was brought out by testimony by both daughters it is your claim the very why didn't your client you know why you're knowledge and this is not impressed this is more this one more involved the passion of the journey this with more cars and possibly acting reasonably and as i said a little it offers little value compared to what the testimony defense counsel failed to file an objection to the mittens of the nine one one tape in the trial now what the prosecution or what the plaintiff is going to say is that this is  s already was it's it's of it's not going it's not it's unfair it's an unfair motion earth it's not it's not it's not worthwhile emotion but in this case especially after testimony from yes and did the victim test yes and did they report that they made the call one of them made the call yes and what is a sack finder supposed to think about the testimony regarding the bloody nose and the call without the background of a nine one one call being made i think the background was sufficiently established with throughout the testimony of nine one one well then how is there any prejudicial effect to the child who made the call who is younger i think in the victim and who testifies i was trying to protect my sister because i think what the words spoken have said to prejudicial effect that they outweigh the fact that two witnesses testify in regard to why the call was made and what happened after the call i think so your honor i don't understand that explain it to me because what i believe in this case quavering voice yes yes your honor i believe and in the context of this case where the victim is essentially talking about her mother yeah and i think this is what makes the state's case i don't think without this without this case which was also played twice which was played after the girls testimony of this was played in the davis added so this was on top of their emotional emotionally charged testimony and also bits of it was played right before the closing argument i think as i said i think this is a mostly an emotionally charged nine one one call that there's not it doesn't add value to the testimony i think that it's i think it great we pray you suit prejudices my client because it does it doesn't provide anything that hasn't already came out and test them off you know i'm i'm saying that the that the values you know it's a sin it's not winning factor i think the values minimal and the i mean there's also testimony even before it was fully you know the youngest the youngest daughter was you know asked you know did you tell your mom and she said no there's testimony in there is who were the olde will testify that she told her mother and then i cross she says i might not have told we were we i didn't say it that way i didn't use the specific words well did they also say that mother told them to say the nine one one call her big business youngest daughter had bloody nose and was frightened there's testimony that fast yes at that time but i don't think there's adequate evidence to show that she was trying to hide something there and i don't think that that was brought up really that was brought up in argument that that was reason i think the reason that it was provided is to show that there could have she called nine one one so contacting the mother because she thought the mother wanted how when it's our belief that she called nine one one because she saw her sister being harmed and she was trying to help her sister and her mom was her mother was in the house she was in the house but she wasn't within the closest saying for how was the phone i mean nine one's going to be a lot more effective than her mother if she thinks her sister i think you could reasonably believe that think the members of the jury are using their understanding of life and human nature would believe that a child who was seeking hel would most naturally reach for the phone call in a room as opposed to saying mother this man is doing bad things to my sister times with nine one one calls a lot and they would like to address is the third prong is the state being allowed to recall witness progress in this case when improperly loud and playing air in this case the youngest daughter was called off twice affectively after this testimony that involved did you tell them what had been happening to you answer yes to you ever tell your mom answer no the state was seeking out on this was conversations how with the youngest daughter in earlier interview forms and this is basically to go in after the same same problem that they failed to have to bring through on their direct of the youngest daughter and i think that would be great once again prejudicial  found guilty of the permitting sexual abuse of a child after a jury trial as noted defendant has raised three issues on appeal absent by questions by the further i would suggest that if it is not such fully make such an argument even if she were to attempt to do so the test is whether or not the this case was defendant's knowledge the nine eleven by one one phone call in the nine one one phone call the younger daughter stated that she was being molested her older sister was being and that it was humility i'm not sure what defendant means by passionate evidence but certainly in child sexual abuse cases juries are naturally going to be exposed unnecessarily prejudicial in summary the statements on the recording pertaining to the a molestation of the older daughter relevant further the question of the supreme court in one case which is cited in the stage brief i said that it was not required and that was a criminal case in another case a subsequent case civil case it said that they were treated the same and then five so cases and criminal cases in this area are treated the same as far as whether or not an objection is necessary and it's just the fact that the supreme court has given two different decisions there's a current view of the of some of the other appellate districts is that in order to preserve the issue you have to go where there is a motion in limine file you have to object also commute i