fair trial based on the actions of the trial judge and defense counsel in the event of this honorable court does not grant a response to relieve he asked for a monetary relieve under issue three mr nunn was denied a fair trial by the actions of the judge and defense counsel which resulted in the jury learning that none previously had been the defendant in a prosecution involving the shooting death without learning that none had been acquitted of that on misunderstood the court's ruling and fail to introduce evidence that no one was acquitted she also failed to request a limited instruction just a reminder as to the facts in this case conway testified against n in january two thousand and thirteen in march of two thousand and thirteen conway alleged that in this case not approached him in march when i got him and chased him the state was required to prove that no one with the intent to harass kind of way because of his testimony as a witness conveyed a threat to the person a defense counsel filed a motion in limine name that the state be precluded from mentioning the underlying case was a first degree murder the defense counsel argued that all the jury should know was that connally had testified against him in a previous hearing as a witness to say argue that it was relevant and probative to tell the jury that the underlying to use was first degree murder and set us on the more minor such is retail theft because it explained defendant's motive to get even with kind of defense counsel argued that the state was trying to bolster its current prosecution by showing that the defendant had public an unkind way because none had been accused of shooting another individual in the prior case the general that there could be no mention of first degree murder but he did rule that this state could reference the previous the previous case as a shooting death or a death involving a firearm the judge part of the state from mentioning the defendant was acquitted in the first case unless that door was opened by the defense at trial connally testified that in the previous case he was a defendant i guess mr burt heard me he was a witness and mr hand was the defendant in a prosecution and a case where somebody was shot and they died defense counsel then never elicited evidence that defendant had been acquitted of the underlying murder charge moreover she erroneous lee thought that she was barred from doing so at the hearing on the motion for new trial defense counsel argued that the trial judge erred in not allowing testimony at trial that the defendant was found not guilty to what the victim testified to the  discretion when it allowed the state to introduce a highly prejudicial testimony that connally had been a witness i guess defendant in a prosecution involving a shooting death telling a jury that the previous case involved a shooting  prejudicial and serves no other purpose than to demonstrate defendant's propensity to commit crimes one carrying a gun and missionary if the court found that it was ok that it was relevant to say that the name of the case w people versus not and that would have fulfilled the elements of the offense and that the person had had to threaten harass a witness but then once the trial court learned that the death in the that really what it had to come in was that conway was a witness and in some capacity in that previous hearing it didn't have to be in a tree they didn't have to bring in testimony that it was a trial or that once the judge learned that the death in the prior case was due to a handgun he said the state could call it a shooting death because it set the stage for this case the judge said he was ok with letting in the part about the gun because well in the first conway was confronted on a public place the sidewalk and yet another guy in a guy again was displayed to him by the same person and he testified against the prejudice of allowing the statement far outweigh gun in the first case and certainly he must be guilty of the present case because he had begun again with other crimes other than this is generally inadmissible a trial because it can over persuade the jury leaving them to convince convict the defendant because he is a bad person deserving of punishment the only information that the jury needed to know was that kind when he testified against in a previous case and it was at the state's argument that none had more of a motive to conway based on a type of case for which he was originally tried lacks merit first of all none was acquitted of the underlying case and secondly as justice holder's pointed out any case even a civil case is enough and could be enough of a reason for a defendant to her as a witness such as and people versus bird which was a custody case where a defendant threatened the social worker the state could have brought in as some other way try to prove their case that they kind of ways testimony was somehow essential or particularly in favor of all if they did not do that the trial judge abuses his discretion in allowing their prior assistance of counsel where his attorney misunderstood the trial court's ruling and failed to introduce evidence that he was acquitted of the underlying crime and where she fails requests the woman instruction to try to help mitigate the damage  once the judge allowed the jury to hear that he was a defendant in the shooting death counsel's failure to introduce evidence of the acquittal could not have been trial strategy because she misunderstood their ruling judge clearly stated that it could come in if defense counsel opened the door and went to courts have consistently maintained that where a defendant has been acquitted of an offense and it is other crimes evidence fairness generally requires a court to allow evidence of the acquittal defense counsel failed to mitigate the prejudice caused by the evidence led in that and it was a defendant in the shooting death she could have requested a limiting instruction for example the first two paragraphs of i p i three point one four which would have instructed the jury that the evidence could only have been used for a moment of retirement without it the jury could have and perhaps did crime that involved a shooting which supported legalized believes that defended intended to shoot levi due to his prior to estimate when the trial judge did a balancing in use discretion to judge allowed that evidence that the prior trial relevant to any case but it's more productive in this case because our defendant had a gun clearly intended to shoot if you shoot the witness we'd like it's more productive that the prior trial involved the but what does the description of the setting have anything whatsoever to do with the veracity of that setting we can set the stage for the type of harassing yes the word that the verses were talking about the first element is is intent in the intent can be shown through the type of prior trial action maybe intent to make a phone call to have the police arrest you for the why is not shown as strongly in a criminal case as it would be in a civil case but you know in a criminal case like this where gun is proceeding would go to the to ensure this is correct in so whether this particular mentioning that was a shooting in a death was more probative i believe it was it certainly was relevant  case of course as you're saying it would have been relevant in any prior action whether it was a civil or criminal action but we're dealing with pulling out a gun in this case he hadn't seemed as if enter the wood is for nine weeks since the trial and he you know any can a simple lesser offense type case of trespass and his whatever may happen to be it's still relevant but it's not particularly probative to why he would have pulled a gun and certainly the because the the earlier trial was about a shooting that's more probative than a different type of case and that's what this particular judge found and we have to remember in this case look i testified that only he said this jury the defendant had been acquitted further is we've mentioned the defendant didn't defense counsel did not have to bring these up because the witnesses already presented that evidence that the defend it was not in the butler for the proposition that harassment of witnesses a specific intent crime in our supreme court in people we foster which is quoting terrell stated clue the jury can infer intent from the character of the defendant i just want to respond to the argument that the trial court judge made when he said that he thought the trial judge thought that if he were to say that defendant was acquitted of a murder charge that it would tend to work against the defendant because it was implied that he had escaped accountability and all due respect that wasn't the judge's determination to make that was defense counsel's and in her in the hearing on the motion and lemonade she argued  she while because they want to tie it into the fact that it was a murder case even though he was acquitted of it why is he going to go after these people why would he he was acquitted he was found not guilty he had no reason to and as that's what i would have thought as a juror is you know he was acquitted why would he choose someone with a gun and if the jurors had been told that perhaps they would have had the same thought and also argue that the jury doesn't know about felony murder so if they heard defendant in a prosecution involving the shooting death they're going to think murder that guy shot a gun and killed someone  there's just this whole riff point and i it was obvious that he was acquitted just because he was not in custody could have been as far as the ineffective assistance of counsel hearing that the defendant was involved in the shooting death was not something the jurors it was an easily forgotten so bringing in of the testimony could have only been used for motive or intent would not have drawn additional