raised on appeal of those two well we're happy to answer questions on either issue i'd like to focus the court's attention simply on to the first issue which is the trial court's admittance of other crimes evidence in the form of ronald squiers testimony that he was pushed into lake michigan by john haley a month before the issue of this case in assessing the issue the first concerns are whether or not the other crimes evidence could be relevant for any purpose other than propensity or to show that he was a man of bad character if so then we must evaluate whether the car would have value was substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice first and foremost he made a statement it certainly was in the beginning your honor he definitely attempted to mitigate and try to lessen his culpability when he initially made the statement however once you get to about page twenty six twenty seven of the transcript on it's clear that he's moved away from you know inadvertently ran by and bumped somebody in the water to i intend to i pushed him in the water i thought it was funny at the time i ran a way it was clear even the detective who was the state's witness the detective when asked about it ultimately on cross said he did take responsibility for his actions so while initially the confession did have some ambiguity ultimately it was not disputed at trial as to who done it it was clear that he had intentionally done it the defense argued as such in the pretrial hearing on the state's motion to admit the other crimes evidence and given the fact that the issue was not really in dispute many of the reasons why this evidence was brought in in the first place from m o o knowledge mistake all those things and weighing the probative value it diminishes substantially the probative value of the evidence because there were other methods of proving the same thing additionally not only did john halley statement indicate that he pushed intentionally the two fishermen in the water but also eric christie's testimony on the stand he was asked you know did you know a did he push him in the water and he confirmed that he did know that constantly asked you about your reliance on the language though you know factually we can say that pen and also not only are slightly different in this case the principles that were used in those cases absolutely do apply and those principles are that when you do have more than one way of proving something or when the issue is not really in dispute the property value diminishes so the fact that the trial court in this court in this case went on the belief that if there's a great similarity therefore it's relevant therefore it should be admissible if it's not prejudicial but the case actually doesn't line up that way both big and lonely stand for the propositions that if you have alternate methods of proving a given fact even if it were relevant to a material issue a trial you have to weigh that into account in assessing th there was plenty of evidence there so when you bring in the testimony of somebody a victim who was then describing again and again what it's like to go through it's obviously a harrowing experience everybody described it is that the state even  sentencing was honest about the information and said that this evidence it was as if we heard what was going on in don'ts head so again this information it was detail they didn't just prove that he intentionally did it and it had marginal relevance at best and diminish probative value again going to the points that it was supposedly admitted for the judge admitted on the basis that it could go to intent or knowledge could go to modus operandi and absence of mistake i touched upon modus operandi and absence of mistake that those really should not have been an issue at that point as to the intent or knowledge  yes why is testified as to what he experienced there was nothing in squires testimony that went to what john healy knew or what john haley experienced john hilley unfortunately pushed squiers in and ran away didn't see what he went through so to prove that there was a reckless act of form two but they also had to prove that the act was likely to create great bodily harm or death so there's there's an issue that it is actually the juries are struggle with that because as the state in distinguishing and they read with respect to the prejudice so i'm trying to tie it into that they had a real issue that they had to consider and where they're given this heated testimony showing how bad john henry is what he put an individual through and what don't look would have gone through but that that could in the case where he's charged with first degree murder but the facts don't support first degree murder and the only thing left on the table is the instruction for involuntary manslaughter at the end of the day they found him guilty of something and based on the fact that nobody would have liked that you're a bad person and we're going to punish you for something it doesn't matter whether you necessarily committed aggravated battery versus involuntary manslaughter battery wasn't charged in this in this case so but he was encouraged with first degree murder and the jury didn't go with that that involuntary that's correct and he saw again i was you prejudiced by the this supposed you know prior crime because even even if the state charges a greater offense and the the convicting on the lesser the fact that they didn't convict on the greater offense doesn't mean necessarily that they carefully considered whether he was guilty of the lesser it's possible that somebody could have looked at the facts and said you know this is really an aggravated battery case with a terrible outcome that that wasn't foreseen and we don't know that necessarily it was likely that somebody would have drowned in the circumstances i'm not saying it had to go that way but that is certainly a possibility and based on that the jury has to a jack to be unbiased to look did it was offered they argued that it was going to go to what he intended that he knew it was a dangerous act but again scryers didn't testify to anything that john hilley knew or that that was likely and at the end of the in that and that is that that the statement was that haley was concerned and that's why he came back the testimony from eric was that eric was concerned and he went to haley and it was his idea to come back and he said have the agreed to come back and he stated that he  so i would posit that being remorseful some for something doesn't necessarily show that you thought it was dangerous you could you know and you know offend somebody very badly as somebody who has had too much of it could offend their friend verbal way and the next day wake up and say  haley knew at that time he wasn't testifying to what he really knew he did say that he was remorseful but that was it he said that it was his idea to go back and he agreed to it and then once they were there they both left thinking that nothing had happened that i meaning he wasn't harm because they didn't see any evidence that he was harmed in his fishing here had been taken away so based on that unfortunately haley was left with the impression that well it ended up ok in the end so again it doesn't go to that testimony did not dylan went through the same things that squire went through also compared the fact that squire's boots felt like bricks this would have been something that don't went through also again that issue was directly related to the prejudice because again finding him guilty of involuntary manslaughter they had to prove that it was likely to cause great bodily harm or death that factor would have gone to rather not if you're wearing boots on your push then it's late it's likely that you that you could drown so again the evidence was it was prepared information should not have been let in those cases that were cited in the briefing mentioned here they were both reversed based on appeal of use of discretion standard so there's case law supporting it the general principles that was that evolved in those cases should apply plainly showed the defendant attacked an unsuspecting everley dressed fischman who die from behind the victim plunged into the cold waters of lake michigan and had no apparent means of survival just one month prior to this incident defendant had attacked another fishman ronald surprise an almost identical manner given these two details the people charged defend it with first degree murder the other crimes evidence was admitted to show defendants knowledge of the dangers involved in the attacks it was relevant to show unequivocally admitted that he pushed the victim into the water that he be wavering that he did early in his confession booth came clean and by the time he was here basically think there was no clear unequivocal admission that yes i you know i pushed the guy in the water that's what i did it was no clear statement of that side that you're saying correct defendant's admission  so serving and would not have been suitable to prove the first degree murder charge and i'm sure that he was trying to help the state prove the first degree murder charge that's not what i would ask you let me ask you whether there was a clear danger involved for three reasons one you're on a picked up just during defendant's argument which is that crisp a spoke with defendant after the attack and explained that it was real there was real danger of what defendant had just done and defendant understood this and way the defendant understood the knowledge because of the great danger involved because he was informed of it and he felt remorse and because defense counsel was just a main target the evidence in one way doesn't eliminate the fact that it is still very probative too and went towar and during cross examination defense counsel elicited the same testimony that on appeal defendant now claims was too prejudicial and when the prejudicial comments were made sense counsel failed to raise any timely objection and during closing argument defense counsel was the one who first began by relating the the situation around the surprise it undergone and the people's response in closing argument was triploid to what the senate said defense counsel that was given by squires you know i directed the first defense counsel was i was faced with the issue of why i've litigated this pretrial i've lost on it the evidence is going to be coming in at that point then defense counsel tried to do the best that he could to mitigate mentioned ronald squires and said to the jury you're going to hear from around the scryers he was going to testify about his experience so this issue was before the jury they were thinking about it at that point so at this point then defense counsel wants to at certainly improbable the defense counsel going to go through all this detail about what you experience what it was like to have boots on when they were read all those things to get those details out there so had it been a different situation where undirected samay she defense is now using the witness so again this issue was i was the bag the jury they're people they want to hear it as far as ride the objections were made as it as it was coming in i mean this is simply people once they start hearing that defense counsel doesn't want to rely on the jury and look like the individual who wants to keep all this want to keep them from the real story so events counsel tried the best they could to mitigate the damage of the evidence and the one thing i did want to bring out just in rebuttal to the substance of what opposing counsel mentioned was whether or not the confession once you get to page about twenty six of the transcript there are statements i know i pushed a man in the water and he died i pushed him into the water thinking it would be funny i thought it would be funny when i did it a month ago i said thanks for the write i pushed him in the eric and i laughed this is the very end of the statement goes on i thought it was funny the very last line in the statement i thought it was funny by the end of his statement there is no doubt that john haley is admitting to intentionally pushing them into the it is still didn't recognize the consequences of what is a would be if i may still could have said that he made the statement that he made the statement that i pushed him into the water thinking it was funny i would submit that what that means for a mistake i made a mistake but to say that you're doing it because you think it's funny means that you're intending to do it this is the reason why because i think it's funny i'm going to do it it doesn't starts to get an exception to that it has to be for all these other you know valid reasons other than propensity other than to show that he's a bad character so if those reasons are at best marginal and arguably not even related to the trial at this