definition instruction which accurately stated the knowledge element the not here the defect here because the jury was then presented with complected instructions and tell library on that the definition instruction essentially said not only causing what the supreme court will tell us this and i p i shall be used unless the court determines it does not accurately state the law if the court in this case make that finding when it definition or any jury instructions that i p i shall be used unless the court determines that it does not accurately state the law in this case the court did not give the definition of knowingly the i definition of knowingly before every few thing to give that definition did it make a finding that it did not accurately state the l that its basis for refusing to give i p i five along b was because it didn't accurately state the law his reasoning was that it was too confusing essentially for the jury tunder stand to consideration for the facts of this case where barry was challenging the knowledge element it was essential for the jury to understand what that meant and that  at this charging the firearm which led to the jury's question seeking clarification about that term give them that clarification about the knowledge element when they were asking for it in in the simple element they essentially undercut his defense because then the jury was essentially allowed to convict strategy that will be that would not be a possible or reasonable strategy because in order to prove that every mental state is either intentional or knowingly so either way definition of what was part of your argument that the writing response was not to further define knowingly in accordance with recent things well so in the heat of the moment could the defense attorney say well as purpose is still higher than knowingly nine that was still not reasonable strategy because the jury was also contemplating whether knowingly was simply he knew that it went off and that directly undercuts his theory clearly they were confused they needed guidance on this essential element and it's incumbent on counsel to make sure that the jury is rendering its verdict based on the applicable law and here is that gun at the victim and shot the victim in the face before quickly driving away a defendant cannot meet the tests of plain error or in effect a trial counsel based on his arguments regarding the jury instructions those tests require a finding that defendant conviction resulted from an error or from counsel's representation that affected the result of this trial here defendant's convictions are based on the evidence presented which overwhelmingly establish that the defendant shot the victim with the required mental state and my argument will refute that defendant's two main points st the jury was correctly instructed on the elements of aggravated battery based on the use of a firearm the jury received the clickable pattern instructions for this offense and the trial court is required to use pattern instructions where they accurately state the law as was the case here the people were required to prove that defendant in committing a battery knowingly discharge a firearm and cause any injury to the victim and the issues instruction that was given in this case tracks the language of the statute the defendant's representation and that the term knowingly needed to be included in the nd element of the issues is not challenging the proof as to the nd element he doesn't deny that he had knowledge that firing a weapon could cause an injury he contends he did not knowingly shoot the gun and the instructions were clear on that now because this issue was not raised in the trial court the defendant faces a substantial hurdles plain error or showing his counsel is ineffective in some way and he cannot make that showing first as to plain error the instructions correctly stated the law and therefore there was no error and no playing air even if this court did find a pattern instructions were somehow lacking it must consider if that instructions in their entirety fully and fairly set out the law and furthermore defense counsel can't be a deemed unreasonable for agreeing to a correct instruction and as to the st prong of plain error and prejudice under strickland defendant can act establish those either he cannot show that the verdict did not result from the evidence that was presented at trial or eight and it can't cannot even show reasonable probability of a difference ault if the jury instruction had the defendant's desired reading of the defendant's version of events is simply not worthy of belief he claimed to be afraid of the victim however for weeks before the shooting he drove by the victim's house and honk his horn and read his engine repeatedly he had mentally went to the victim house on the day of the shooting to confront the victim so despite the fact that he alleged that he feared the victim he drove to the victim's house and car and waited for the victim to approach him and one of the witnesses who  testified that she saw the victim walk to the defendant's car and she heard them talking but she did not watch closely because this was quote an every day thing unquote now why would the defendant be arguing with the victim every day and affirmatively seek out this victim on this day in particular if he was allegedly in such fear of the victim now defendant claimed that he feared the victim and his family and they chose to stop by when the victim and his family members were outside and he sat in his car while the victim walked toward the passenger side of the car defend it was in the driver's seat and so the victim was not even on the side of the car where the defendant was sitting the victim was three feet away from the passenger door so he was not even close to the defendant and the defendant said testified that he usually kept his gun in the trunk of his car but when he drove to the victim's house he had the gun on the passenger seat of the car so he claimed that the gun went off when he was trying to put it in his coa but then he said that before he put the gun in his coat the victim saw the gun on the seat and took off however the victim testified that the defendant reached into his coat pocket and pulled out a gun so the defendant's claim sequence of events is not credible given that the victim was shot in the face now defendant also claimed he did not know the victim was shot in the face and he but he testified that he heard the victim shouting for help to his family members and defendants knowledge can be shown through circumstantial evidence after finding a weapon he fled the scene which shows consciousness of guilt and you led the police on a prolonged pursuit so just because the evidence is conflicting and that the defendant presented another version of events does not make the evidence closely balanced for a plain error analysis now as to the nd the nd main issue defense counsel was well within the bounds of reasonable representation in choosing not to provide a definition in response to the jury's question now the defendant also must meet the two part test on this issue which is strickland he must show that counsel's actions were objective way and reasonable and that the result of his trial would have been different had the jury been given the definition of unknowing mental state now the jury here did not ask about the results of the defendant's conduct the jury posed a question about the quired mental state for the element of the discharge of a firearm now therefore the jury asked a question to which it already had the answer and the defendant does not dispute that the definitional and issues instructions contained t correct mental state the court advise the jury in responding to the question the court advice the jury to review the instructions given and continue to deliberate now just because a jury question is asked does not mean the instructions that were given were not accurate and complete the defendant premises this argument and the st issue which which argues was a quote faulty issues instruction however as i've already argued the pattern it's instruction correctly stated the law and even if defense counsel had insisted on a particular response which as i will argue in a minute was within the bounds of reasonable transfer energy  to refrain from doing so the trial court should decline to answer a question from the jury if the instructions are understandable and sufficiently explain the relevant law and further instructions might mislead the jury or if the jury's question involves a factual issue now in addition the court can elect not to answer a jury's question if it is ambiguous and if the court's response opens a colloquy and could i could prompt the urge to ask further questions or it would require the court to explain facts or lead the jury to express an opinion that might sway the jury one way or the other now that question indicates that the jury was considering two mental states and asking which mental state applied here and the court and the parties correctly determined that the jury already had the answer to that question now as to defense counsel's performance the jury was instructed on attempted murder aggravated battery and reckless conduct now here defense counsel was in fact very effective in securing an acquittal for attempted murder given the defendant's incredible testimony that he didn't remember aiming the weapon or pulling the trigger but yet stating that he certainly knew that the that the weapon discharged inside the car now at the end of closing argument defense counsel asked the jury to find defendant not guilty of attempted murder and not guilty of aggravated battery but guilty of reckless conduct so the question that the jury question that was posed indicated that the jury was deciding between mental states pertaining to attempted murder and aggravated battery now when the court st showed the jury's question to defense counsel counsel's response was that the jury should continue to deliberate based on the instructions it had and defense counsel's position was consistent throughout the discussion defense counsel i just art each of the jury that it should only consider reckless conduct so it was entirely reasonable that when faced with a jury's question defense counsel would not choose to highlight that she was coupled with mental states and risk diverting the jury's attention from a reckless conduct verdict the defense counsel had seen the jury's reaction to in response to the defendant's testimony and so counsel could consider how credible the jury had found defendants us to moni and after weighing the question and the potential verdicts that the jury could reach defense counsel agreed that no response should be given to the jury question and that was well within the bounds of reasonable travel strategy now in conclusion and the given instructions allowed the jury defendant's claim that he did not seek a confrontation with the but the victim when in fact the defendant signed off the victim and brought a weapon with him and had it handy now the defendant must bear responsibility for that choice that the jury convicted the court determines it does not accurately reflect the law does not accurately state the law did the court make that finding here when it declined to give a five point one knowing definition instruction no your honor the court did not make a finding that the instructions that the instructions that were given did not correctly stand alone and here they have the you have to do you have to prove knowingly  was given right then and the parties either party as the court has a duty to instruct the jury where clarification is needed here by the jury question i wasn't clear where the confusion why it was with the term of knowingly well i i think that the jury and rd jury question asked what the what the required mental state was i don't think that the jury was asking a question that could be responded to without influencing the jury in some way and i think that the correct response was that the instructions that they have been given you know covered the coverage or question that the jury did not ask for the do not ask for a definition well basically that may well i would i would respectfully disagree or honor the the jury did not ask what is knowingly what is knowingly mean they asked for me what comes out they said as well as as justice hudson noted i believe that you know the jury was was fluctuating between intent and knowledge so it was clearly considering the instructions that it was given and trying to decide between what defendant's culpable mental state was however they did not seem to be uncertain they did not seem to be thinking they didn't ask anything about an accident statute so therefore the issues instruction of lottery reflected the prior version of the statute and in lottery the jury asked a different question they asked what knowingly meant the jury of the jury  any decision to not further instruct the jury the court concluded that the decision could not have been attributed to any sound a trial strategy by the defense counsel right i mean right the defense was charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm and armed robbery and defense counsel did not argue that the shooting was accidental and defense counsel and lowry in deciding that no response should give should be given and stated on the record you know it's reasoning which was based on an entirely different instruction which to which that the st district pointed out in larry and that the defense counsel clearly wasn't even considering the aggravated battery instruction so counsel and larry they're asking what it means what does this mean i get that in my internet asking for example nation you could you even if you're arguing that this is there was no reversible error correct failing to give that definition to decide on the basis in the record however you know as i argue just because a jury question you know it is asked did not mean that the instructions were not accurate and you know you can't you know you can't ignore what what the question is i i don't understand why both the state and the defense and the court what just give the definition of knowingly when it's night instruction i mean it's not like you have to sit around and wreck your brains on how t how the answer the question it's an i p o instruction would knowingly have hurt the state no would have hurt the defense maybe i just i guess that's my question is how is it that we don't give an i p o by definition when the jury asked for it well again this needs to be looked at through the lens of defense counsel strategy because that is what is being raised it was not you know that's the argument that the sense that the defendant is making you know so is your question if the jury asks does the court always have to give an instruction on a mental state you know that well that the people cannot agree that all the circumstances that that instruction must be given you know that the jury you know that instruction would not have would not have helped the defen e at all and so the question is whether defense counsel was within the bounds of reasonable representation and our humanness that they were guess my issue was if the instruction was given we probably would not be here and it was an idea instruction of which everyone had the answer knew the definition it's i p i what is the basis for not giving it is it fair or not to give it i guess is our question that we have to to address thank you justice i can i do have a question counsel were talking about whether or not you seem to be you know articulating the defense counsel's acquiescence to the courts and the state's position that further instruction should not be given defying knowingly was  d strategy were did you get that idea from in other words let me ask you a pointed question when there was a colloquy at the bench about how to respond to the jury's question the defense counsel articulate at that time anywhere in the record that it was a matter of proud strategy he preferred not to give the instruction because it helps his case of the jury's confused where did you draw the conclusion that this was strictly trials pretty well your hon don't think that we have to everything that defend everything that pertains to defendants trial strategy that's not on the record i think we can surmise that the defendant did not want to highlight all mental state when it was clear that the jury was considering one and that the defendant defense counsel had just argued that the jury or so of the record is that councils are sponsors that the jury should deliberate based on the instructions that had you know and defendants you know really not  version of events supports that argument again defendant defense counsel had to play the hand that was dealt and would probably have the deemed ineffective if it if it you know pretty much handed you know handed the jury the the tools it needed to then return a conviction so just to clarify the defense counsel on his or her own volunteer the jury should keep deliberating based on the instructions that was the only response from defense counsel defense counsel responded that the that's the that the instructions jury should deliberate based on what it was given and that is the only so here's what i'm trying to tie this into i think a lot always is a very close law already adapted was added as a result of people versus broader which found reversible error with the circuit court did not provide an instruction to carry the finding knowingly after the jury exposed confusion clearly the jury was confused about the definition they asked the question so i think the lottery is that point and you know you're making a valiant attempt to save it in a trial strategy argument but you know and i'm wondering about how strategic it was is simply respond keep deliberating you have the instructions i think that's the crux of the whole debate here but any event that's all you have to take and i respond to your question about broader your honor  honor i have one question with respect to the accuracy of the instructions that the jury was given under the issue construction wouldn't this jury be able to find the defendant guilty merely for discharging the firearm even if accidentally in other words the strict liability offense no no your honor for for there to be a strict liability a sense the this is not a strict liability offense because the instructions include a couple mental state you know both both the definitional on issues instructions state a culpable mental state the instructions require the jury to find that knowingly discharge of a gun and the definition instructions stated that you knowingly had to cause bodily harm so no i would i would not agree that this would be this could be considered a strict liability issue and that is without the additional definition of knowingly in response to the question that the jury asked correct because because if if you know defendants argument that knowingly had to be included in the nd element would render it a non pattern jury instruction and the bottom line  a close evidence but rather the closeness of sufficient evidence and the credibility of the witnesses was crucial here because despite the state's evidence at trial the jury was not completely convinced that they were  convicted him of the fence that there could be used about so here in correct instruction in correct response to the jury's question essentially left him defenseless because it allows the jury to convict him even if they believe the shooting was an just given that knowingly knowingly and definition under five point zero one that that may be more detrimental to the defense don't you think it  respectfully disagree whether it was detrimental or not it was required to be given it was at this court recognized it was an i p l instruction the committee kermit's say that it should be given