number of events that the parts the owner identified as missing from the building were not the same parts that were found in mr smith's that's right and the home the fence around the land had been present for at least a week how do you know that the  for the lack of waste were not from the auto parts store mr greene the owner of the building identified as the parts missing from his building as hole in the fence he was seen going into the fenced area this is the one witness's vision was blocked for it but there was in the indication also that there had been a broken window old the fence has been present for at least a week which is the last time mr green the owner of the shop had as a but you're saying that even though there's that testily isn't that what circumstantial evidence is all about that you can infer from the circumstances that he he went in there because he was observed throwing things over the fence later that we're all a part auto parts so to speak well the property owner indicated that the reason the the law was fenced in was for storage so are we can make a reason why in france if there were probably auto parts on the property itself that were not necessarily in the building so we do know that mr smith was outside the building on inside the fence or outside the building and between possession of property stolen and the burglary and the participation of arc well yes the weakest part of the state's case here and here i think the weakest part is just because all the circumstantial facts that they rely on every single fact has me so for instance the fact that he needed to have he did not he was not in possession with the stolen property that was stolen from the beltway he was in possession of property that he did it on and it's an officer was stolen however it was not the property stolen from inside the building and addition the fact that the window had been broken and the door was broken and that's not that circumstantial evidence is also not sound because there had been must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr smith and heard the building an order for him to be convicted of burglary and here the only reasonable inference we can make from all the circumstantial facts is that he was on the money and if we look to the case and to have an eyewitness putting someone inside a building in order to steal burglary you know you under housing don't have to have an eyewitness but you do need to mean the three parts of house the end here the first part can't be mad property and the record indicates that stolen property as identified in the garbage can as mufflers pipes and ball were not the the stolen property that was identified as top of the building w person to fit through them lost sight of defendant and then ten minutes later the defendant reappeared with auto parts he threw those auto parts over the chain link fence i guess it is through the through back into the alley and put those parts into his garbage can ten minutes later only three blocks from the auto parts store to find it was stopped by sergeant jared surgeon chairman testified that inside the garbage can there were lots of different really my focus here is did anyone ever identify these auto parts is coming from the auto parts store no one directly testified to that the record does not indicate that however ok but don't you think that that's a necessary component of establishing a burglary the people believe that based on the totality of the circumstances that michael green the owner of the when he admitted that he had some property that was known as he said it wasn't yes that's correct however it was reasonable for a rational trier of fact to found this to be untrue considering that mr cannon testified consistently incredibly that he specifically saw defendant client through the hole in the chain link fence disappear for ten minutes and then reappear with auto parts it was also reasonable for the rational trier of fact to have returned it excuse me to have rejected the garbage can specifically the my first pipes and the bolts to michael green stating what was missing from his auto repair shop the struts the shock absorbers the brake pads of the springs and the reasonable in friends that defendant so he went in week before really didn't take an inventory so that when he took the inventory that day this burglary he indicated that there were items missing wouldn't those items have been missing from the week before it's certainly a possibility but how they're put in there of him items you know outside that garage here yeah that we're just laying around that's a possibility however michael green stated that when he did look at the store the week prior to twentieth he looked at the shops he looked to see which items were there and which were not so although he didn't take an actual physical written inventory he did know he did have an idea of the auto parts that were in his store furthermore at the broken window and the garage do not support the defendant simply took the auto parts from the area the fence that lot let me ask you this let's compare this case to a car and let's say that the offender takes of some sort do you think that if the victim the owner of the auto didn't identify yet radio that he could still be  the owner of the car was able to say i had a serial missing from my car the defendant was then found with the stereo in his possession there's a short time span up close proximity which is the first house the factor between anything ever taken or the exact property you know mr green said some things were missing but no one has ever identify anything as being stolen from the between when defendant entered the hole in the chain link fence the fact that the garage for with kicked in and the window was broken defendant admission that he had taken not the olds mufflers and pipes the fact that sergeant german specifics up specifically saw defendant with lots of different car parts mufflers pipes and bolts and the fact that mr greene testified that several parts were missing from his store including struts brake pads and spray it was reasonable very very short  prior incidents and the hole in the fence had been there for the past week so we cannot necessarily make the inference that it was mr smith who had been in the building because nobody saw him in the building and he was not possession of and the circumstantial evidence is what they used to establish whether or not the defendant took the strong goods however the stolen property was not in  both of you it and we certainly think you will take the case under advisement