I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING THE
ADMISSION OF EVEIDENCE OF A RECORDING BELIEVED TO BE
PETITIONER AND AN UNKNOWN MALE AS PROPENSITY EVIDENCE
AS IT WAS MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE IN
CONTRAVENTION OF HORN V STATE AND PETITIONERS
FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL.

II. STATES EXHIBIT 1 WAS IMPROPERLY ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF
INTENT AND/OR ABSENCE OF MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT

III. BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
PETITIONERS CONVICTIONS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, DUE PROCESS
REQUIRES HIS CASE TO BE REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS COUNTS 2 AND 3.

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the admission of evidence of a recording believed to be the petitioner and an unknown male as propensity evidence, which was more prejudicial than probative in contravention of Horn v State and the petitioner's fundamental due process right to a fair trial