with the issue raised in our one and three i plan to be pinned today by addressing the points raised there and certainly every case is unique but given the court we are here today because prosecutors playing county i would argue are incorrectly charging a crime and frankly charging a crime under the sun circumstances that we have today i presume those prosecutors report has taken its merit route and they don't always agree with history i would assume that is correct but whether or not that you know i you know aside from this you know bond was not a case like we have here where we have a prosecutor aren't going to the jury that we know the victim was unable to consent simply because she is a minor and that she's fourteen and i respectfully disagree with the majority's opinion in this case that any reason language and all dash thirteen eighteen you includes the victims and if there are no other questions on that issue i had planned to address my arguments entirely are one that i am thoroughly prepared to discuss any arguments or questions you might have excuse me related to arguments two and three and  your brief for the states for e that would suggest that the state in its case and she could put on the evidence of hearing membership simply to show why the victim that gang related evidence usually comes in in cases where we're where the state is trying to establish motive or i want to beat or identity and but there are cases that suggest you know probably that evidence is evidence that tends to make it more or less probable and it's usually i'm going to rely on in this case and given the circumstances in this case and that often i believe sex cases involve credibility determination between the alleged victim and the defendant because there are often no third party witnesses and there is often no physical evidence for operating but certainly that being said and i think our races ar that's why in this case i firmly believe that it was far too prejudicial to admit this evidence you know certainly in this case all the defendant have received credibility and when you admit you know evidence that he may or may knowing the leaders of the game and showing the tattoos and then she being intimidated from reporting it because of that when i first come into that justice hope is i don't think the record was entirely clear on whether or not she was intimidated by him it's possible involvement with the kid i mean the defense attorney certainly argued that she was intimidated period and that it wasn't grown related to the  let us first the conversation she overheard that conversation was not even directed towards her it was directed towards the defendant stepdaughter because she said hey you know my boyfriend said he's a member of th you know at family gatherings and also the victim in this case testified that she knew what the tattoos met before this incident and again mr tips or in his interview had stated that the reason that they knew what they  hat by making inferences that i don't think he could make from the record which is you know if you warm this tattoo like a badge of honor i don't see that in the record nor do i see anywhere where the victim was justified in believing that game was going to retaliate against her i mean this is not a game related crime in any way shape or form and that was certainly something he argued to the jury as i noticed as i noted in the briefs and people think that's exactly what they statute says only able to consent for any reason it does not say any temporary reason in the physical reason it says any reason any reason that includes age i think that the fact you  and until the supreme court disagrees with you or i breeze with you should change the following arguments of exactly the same almost the the fact that you can based on an inability to set have different elements and allowing charges under this is not going to eliminate completely the offenses based on age i think that this court's decision in what is the correct one the statute says unable to consent for any reason this legislature has determined that certain individuals because of their age are unable to game membership the victim expressed it is not uncommon for a victim's credibility challenged on the basis of hey didn't report this you must be making this up because you didn't report th the victim had a reason for the delay has been allowed as coming in in this case the victim testify is better reason it is because the of mode of operation continuing narrative and says this could fall within the continuing narrative because the victim testified she didn't report the funding immediately this is page one forty six of volume i left the support she did not want him to come after her or anything because he was telling us stuff earlier that day so is part of the well officer doherty testifying that nine hundred ninety six he made a statement that he was a member of the how does that play into her state of mind she has no idea that occurred that's not relevant to her state of mind well the also perfectly preserved in the post trial motion and to be honest he had already lost the ability to keep that evidence out and so at that point i think it becomes a strategic decision to at least give some kind of instruction to keep the jury from using it for improper purposes however again as i noted in my brief lemony instructions cannot share every error and in this particular case it just simply could not hear it character because it's highly prejudicial and the relevance is tenuous at best and i would also like to know i'm going back to argument why the state reference or kept saying that the statute says any reason i ever talked thirteen dash into does not say on equal to consent for any reason that's language that you will find in this decision this court's decision people be a lawyer based on the decision and people  also improperly bolster the prosecutor statements also improperly bolster the victim's credibility to the jury and that is a point that was made in the breeze and if there are no further questions i would just