of five issues in this case the primary concern is that the state has put away a sixteen year old defendant for life without parole based in material part on a finding of the crime of robbery the crime of robbery that finding went to not only can't you which was robbery but all the way up to in count one through the finding of murder first degree murder and the special circumstances and that the finding of robbery was in turn based on the state prosecutor theory said this doesn't have anything to do with aiding and abetting notwithstanding some strange language in the instructions this person was a direct perpetrator period well the state court decided that he was a direct perpetrator of part of the offense and the state court also found you know state law direct instructions if you go all the way to the end of the special circumstance where it's a thousand that he committed a robbery and then you take the robbery instructions and last question the intent in robbery of course is the intent to steal the intent to permanently deprive him of property in the robbery instruction itself an instruction defining robbery i believe that was my point forty in that instruction  the intent is to find in the past of always the crime must have been committed with the intent to steal well that was very easy to find for the jury because it all testified she was known intended to steal the evidence was quite ambiguous as to back from that the the jury needed to find well actually the first question you asked me and the first question was am i arguing that that cook was guilty he was charged the theory was that he was an  and not a perpetrator and i started answering yes but it's actually yes and no i'm not arguing that cook was only in either that's the confusion that the dca got involved in incidences and the district court actually recognized that i'm not  that the acts of robbery themselves the assault of act of robbery and that that element of robbery then yes he's a perpetrator of the acts of robbery and they need to show he had the intent to steal but in aid of committing the act steal under aiding theory the jury had to find the mens rea and anything in the vetting back of just a minute i'm not a californian so i don't know if it's one eighty seven i called word for a robbery i mean that's what cites no authority for the proposition that when a key element of a crime is formed by another person any accomplice is really an aider and abettor although we found no california case discussed in this issue we conclude defendant is wrong the evidence at trial clearly shows the defendant was guilty of it all as a thousand and one which states what is truly california law when two or more persons commit a crime together which is the state's theory in this case as far as the robberies concerned both may act in part as the actual perpetrator makes any difference to this case here you've got a state court opinion saying the evidence of clearly show that event was gilded also a direct perpetrator of the robbery that's what the state court opinion says about state law since state court found that adolph committed the theft element of robbery and it commits one element of a crime and other people committing the other elements no aiding instructions need to be given that is an unconstitutional rule it violates the federal constitution that will constitution requires a jury finding of guilt because of the one hundred seven but we don't know right right but if it was premeditated is there any way we can reduce it just a moment it's not going off your time best so if the jury went on premeditation at that point they hadn't made any robbery finding correct assuming that the jury analyzed one piece forgetting to count two right and then they only robbery finding would have to be then under the special circumstances but there's no way your argument is without any aider and abettor instruction that there is no way to hang him for the robbery is prominently deprived and this court is mentioned a few things indicate that there was intense permanently deprive first that made the news that it meant give up your stuff shows that there was an attempt from the accomplice to criminally deprive but also the fact that cook did anyone of them do all i mean did cook do all of that if you don't care about eight or his point but did cook do each of those things and in terms of the evidence to support a robbery as opposed to aiding and abetting mr adolf who then actually went up and took the stuff and carried it away the answer is yes cook did commit all of the elements it's true that need help with the asportation of  all of the elements for a robbery by separating the victim from the property that was the subject of a robbery correct with the intent to permit another one to drop your stuff means that's that's enough for robbery yes drop your with the fact that jonathan actually got to start separating from his property and of course he was permanently deprived happen after a robbery and not just aiding and abetting when the other guy then actually takes it  yes there are a few other reasons that we know that cooke was convicted as a direct perpetrator of the robbery and not as an aid and how do you get to the fact that if you know i could tell somebody to drop your purse drop your bag how do you get to the specific intent that i don't mean just drop it now i mean drop it forever because under robbery robbery you have to have a permanent deprivation not just temporary i think the fact of the this case show that cook intended for thorne to be permanently evaded the deprivation permanent to me that's correct yes but the robbery had been accomplished at that point had it not i mean that's a question when was the robbery complete in your the robbery had been completed i think it few of them that i think show specifically that cook was convicted as a direct perpetrator first celtic number eight point two one requires that you know it helps me because we're not in court every day prosecuting one other which was premeditated murder correct that's correct so how does your argument help i think i'm just saying that the jury instructions taken together that in order for the jury to town that it was first degree murder they had to have found that clear isn't it true that under the first degree murder statute there you could either get in because it was premeditated or because it was a felony murder and you agree with that yes and you also agree that the way the jury verdict read we don't know which one the jury went for you know although it appears quite clear that the prosecutor was going for premeditated murder right and now you're telling me that therefore this is going to tell jack that they must have shown felony murder that the prosecutor was going for premeditated murder so we just don't know we don't know that the jury found felony murder correct versus premeditated murder correct i'm just saying that the jury instructions i think show that there was a requirement  prosecutor prove that robbery is specific intent of robbery for their celtic number eight point eight zero point one deals with the special circumstance conviction and it says for special circumstance to be proven and the jury must find s first degree murder and have to find that the murder occurred during the robbery the fact that the jury did find guilty find the special circumstance to be true so that they found that the robbery occurred during the murder occurred during the commission of the robbery not need to find a special circumstance referred to in these instructions as murder in the commission of robbery is true it must be proved the murder was committed while that when it was engaged in the commission of a robbery the murder was committed in order to carry out or advance the commission of the crime or robbery or that cook killed martin in part to advance the robbery he told misty lester that he had to kill the guy because he could have identified him and he also told this to this dude that he stole or that he killed the guy for some beer so it seems very clear that the  the instructions that were given i guess they could have been icing on the cake i just i don't think they were necessary at all as it's clear he was found as a direct perpetrator and certainly if they had been given we wouldn't be here today supreme court case of mccoy in california are you do not need to be the jury does not need to understand that someone is either in a perpetrator or if you have a multiple element crime and the different elements are committed by different people then the jury must rely on something that makes them complicit together where it's whether it's conspiracy theory or aiding and abetting there must be some link so that all of the elements are proved but as the attorney general argues the only reason you the verses las vegas metropolitan police department