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

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 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. Il. STATES EXHIBIT 1 WAS IMPROPERLY ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF INTENT AND/OR ABSENCE OF MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT Ill. 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.