pacifically has to prove in order to convict somebody under a theory of accountability and i don't mean to diminish your organs of those arguments but the bottom line here is if the state has simply failed to show that mr dunbar is anything unlawful why even is that the state failed to prove mr dunbar cule t p i reasonable doubt yes a legal phrase that we normally use when we're trying to argue that the state did not present in up evidence to prove that one of our clients was guilty and this is where phrase it in my free beyond a reasonable doubt the implication in the term is that well the state may present some evidence that mr dunbar community charset offenses but it wasn't enough and i want to be clear that the argument i'm making here is much stronger than that much less first degree murder on this sort of flimsy evidence and i'd even go so far as to say that the term evidence is wrong is the wrong word to use here because that is implies that there was some sort of evidence of wrongdoing the better term here perhaps is made in the state s and live with it in the first thing i'd like to do is clear up a bit of a misconception in the state's brief the state argues that when a defendant is charged under a theory of accountability it's free to proceed as if the defendant rea principal here in this case but the state didn't do that state chose to charge a minor theory of accountability and that these be my first point of law think the state has to prove that i and mr dunbar shared the criminal intent of the principal miss martin or that there was some sort of common criminal design between through them and they say has completely and utterly failed to show that mr dunbar shared any criminal intent or any criminal design with this martin and i know their presence at the scene by statute you know itself is not evidence that mr dunbar shared any common criminals  cannot stand as matters of straightforward law the first is that the state failed to establish a case against a principal and the state is at the state the second is that the state failed to prove that mr dunbar shared any sort of  the mother or the father and the jury gets to hear that's all they have to prove and what this statement unfortunately by the trial court was wrong it's on several different levels first the state did not simply have to prove that either about the prosecution's amazing series of speculation i'll go on top of speculation in his closing argument and i completely understand closing arguments are not evidence of guilt but they certainly had question in a certain point during that interview by my count about nine thirty four in the morning mr dunbar ceased making any meaningful responses to the states we see the police's inquiries and if they are point from that point forward what this interview showed was  it all those all within the appropriate exceptions to the hearsay a placed defendant certainly as the last person who had that child before she found him the child on responsive that evidence and the fact that there was grotesque injuries to this child on the average better to a child as principle and as an accountability theory the state's fairly argue that defendant was responsible for the battery within its child was just fine that's what the record shows in this case in order to from there to convict mr qanbar of murder we have to pile speculation on top of speculation on top of speculation on top of