summer in finding the defendant guilty to sark initially ruled the primary reason for his ruling was that under this delivery not what our own a supreme court itself individual is going to be used of such a serious crime a felony this have to be a class for us to know that what he is delivering to the individual somebody else is and then as a secondary type of way an afterthought judge sautner says about even and even though he doesn't really have to know i still think there are a couple of factual circumstances that lead me to believe that perhaps that this item was not on display at the time the undercover informant came into the store purchase now i really don't understand the logic of that type of of this stuff was an open and during cheney wherry it was an open you and soul and the reason why in this particular situation was not an open is because it was delivered to the store the day before where i think whether it's an open if your not judge that doesn't necessarily establish that patel was aware that it was there are a lot of items that are not in open view that are sold from a store which are not patrick so here i don't think you can infer from that that the item being sold even though it's not an open view has a and a legal substance and that was item number one that the court number two the fact that bulldog according to the judge was used for again that does not necessarily imply that all dogs contain and million of substance there are a lot of items that are used for smoking and that doesn't necessarily mean that was the fact that patel's never stopped selling the item at a different story i don't know exactly how you can infer that the defendant was aware that bulldog important fact is a fact that during and this is hundred hurt during all of december january when it became illegal february march and april it was sold this item learn not to prosecute these cases i didn't until the merchants were informed that this substance was illegal and even that when they sent out that notice it was in april even when even that they told them anybody when the attorney general had placed an order out indicating that we are going to advise the merchants of this problem before we begin to pursue criminal are things that were ignored by the judge which clearly indicated that patel had absolutely no knowledge that this he was working ten hours a day making two thousand dollars a month working seventy hours a week he was told by his boss i have the certificate that indicates this item and legally so we have to keep in mind also brought the attention of just saw that this individual was nothing more than a clerk and he absolutely no monetary reward or benefit by selling used in the regular course of business they were in the cash register and when they searched the place four or five hours later they did find it indicating that it was the tel consider a normal transaction totally contrary to the court's fight with all of the respect of the trial court i believe he was not only wrong on the law but wrong on the facts as well should not have been all you did was go to work ten hours a day and go back live in a trailer that was provided by the store five o'clock in the morning there are two factors stack that i would emphasize in terms of the cop question terminations that this delivery of was knowing first the defendant was aware of the fact that the owner had stopped selling the spite so to speak at his store in horace was also had information suggests indicate yet so he was aware that other stores were selling the product yes when that support the theory that he would think there was nothing wrong with sol i think the there's two elements of evidence which would illegal when he was selling it cannot be credible and finds that even if you did so there was a credibility finding as far as i'm saying this the defendant's prada station you know when you read that i was in the way it is the items to defend it was aware that other places sold it to places that not saw it and the defendant was aware that bulldog was used to smoke so what he's doing there is rely on the truthfulness of the defendant if i didn't feel so that is why is decision is inconsistent again i want to say that the mere fact to use other stores in the area were not solely the site of every other store was is no indication and you cannot draw a reasonable inference if the defendant was aware it was because the