in a criminal case makes findings of fact based on the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses, a reviewing court may not overturn those findings unless there is no evidence to support those' findings. State v. Thompson, 11-0915 at pp. 13-14, 93 So.3d at 563; State v. Wells, 08-2262 at p. 4, 45 So.3d at 580; State v. Hunt, 09-1589 at p. 6, 25 So.3d at 751. In this case, there was evidence in the record upon which the district court could have ruled either that there existed an agreement between the parties or that there was no agreement between the parties. The district court’s decision to credit the defense testimony over that of the prosecution cannot be overturned. See Id. See also State v. Meredith, 35,026, p. 5 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/26/01), 796 So.2d 109, 113 (<HOLDING>). isGiven that we cannot say the district court
holding that the trial court did not err in its refusal to consider the borrowers defense of merger on appeal since the defense was outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony holding a proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been holding that when an alj improperly rejects a claimants testimony regarding his limitations and the claimant would be disabled if his testimony were credited the testimony must be credited as a matter of law holding that because the court credited defense testimony over prosecution testimony and there was a reasonable basis in the record for the trial court finding that an agreement existed between the defense and the prosecution the decision could not be disturbed on appeal