that i would like to focus on here today those relate to the improper submission of an accountability instruction the improper restriction on the defendant's cross examination of a crucial prosecution witness and the juvenile courts improper reversal this court has held that an accountability instruction is improper if the evidence establishes that the defendant acted as a principal and not as an accessory the rationale behind this proposition of law is that to submit an accountability instruction where there is not evidence to support it diminishes the prosecution's burden of proof in this case the prosecution's theory the evidence the testimony elicited it believe implicated the defendant as as the principal the testimony was that the defendant directed the victim to a location where the victim could purchase crack cocaine the testimony was that the definitive pulled defendant pulled out a weapon demanded that the victim give him money chase the victim out of an apartment vestibule and shot him in the back there was nothing on clear or equivocal about the evidence or the testimony this court is dated that deal predicated on an accountability theory is proper only if the other evidence is inconclusive as to the defendant's direct participation and crying you know there was absolutely nothing inconclusive about the state's theory or it and for a number of reasons that argument is is incorrect and should be rejected by this court the state points to a number of things that the defendant did prior to the commission of the shooting itself that would make him guilty as an accomplice but what they did miss is that there has to be some evidence to support a reasonable jury or that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that somebody else acted as principle and that is completely missing in this case there was no testimony that anyone other than the defendant fired the shot that struck to kill the victim embodies the primary distinction credit or reject the testimony that was listed it by the state but what they could not do it is or what were could not do is submit an instruction on the theory of accountability that would provide a way a back door case the jury found the defendant guilty obviously however they also found at the state did not reveal on a reasonable doubt that the defendant had personally destroyed a firearm causing the victim's dud logic dictates that at least a portion of the jury convicted the defendant based on a theory of accountability this was improper however because there was no evidence that the defendant acted as anything other than the principal and there is a case testified that the defendant in that case in that case gave him crack cocaine to sell when the victim was unable to pay the defendant back the defendant directed him into a vehicle from by another individual named knowing they drove to a location secured a weapon drove to an alley the victim exited the vehicle and to defy and shot him in the back knowing testified that he was the one who loaned or gave the drugs to the victim he was the one who drove the defendant and the victim to location and he was the one who shot the victim in the back this court held that in that case not only was it clearer but it was plain error to issue an instruction on the theory  what the state would like for this court's do and what it asked the trial court to do by asking for instruction on a fury of accountability to say look because it is the defendant's conviction was based almost entirely on the codefendant who was with him at the time and what they would like this court to do is allow him to reach a plea agreement with this co defendants in a sense value for his testimony because that's something be brought out on direct examination was the fact that his plea agreement was contingent on him giving truthful testimony we're about to describe as a chain of events in which the defendant i want to zero him commits this shooting but at the same vehicle went up to the apartment and that's where the rubber hits the place absent some form of telepathic communication there's absolutely no evidence in the record that there was any planning for either of these individuals to do this the record would carry that convict the defendant on a theory of accountability in other words as an accomplice there has to be some have eventually braces for the jury to reasonably conclude that somebody else acted as the shooter and there simply was no evidentiary basis that part of the juvenile court's decision to transfer this case because that is of course one of the things that is a conspicuous ratio exactly and obviously if you're dealing with a minor who is char solely an accomplice as opposed to a principle that plays into the decision to transfer the case to criminal court is the big difference between transfer entry and really a line that's correct shooting he encountered byron moore and the defendant and the defendant made an admission to having shot a victim on cross examination the defendant wanted to elicit testimony regarding watson's fear of more and that here was based on watson having heard that more on a prior occasion at rossum when it don't want him because watson who testified over the course of two days after the first day of testimony he received multiple death threats up that somebody had followed him and he attributed that conduct to byron morris people the trout were preclude d the defendant from getting into this area of cross examination and if you review the record it's not immediately clear why the only thing that the truck word says on the record is that she could not find any case law that would support letting one witness talk about their fear of another witness but quite frankly there was no legal reason why the defendant should not have been permitted to go into this very probative area of cross examination there is a wealth of great case precedent that establishes that our witnesses here is relevant to their motive to testify this evidence was not being offered to prove the truth of any of the matters asserted it wasn't being offered as a propensity  annoyance it wasn't being offered for any reason other than to show travis watson's state of mind and that is particularly relevant in this case because watson's testimony was essentially his statement that he gave t police around the time that byron moore was arrested and defense counsel deal with it was able to elicit testimony that lawson was approached by a more in the parking lot of a liquor store shortly before his arrest and they spoke for fifteen to twenty minutes they say so certainly you know if this was extremely prejudicial because after this evidence was excluded the prosecutor argued in closing argument and i'm quoting here let's talk about travis watson what possible motive would travis have to lie what possible motive which travis have to tell the friend letters as what possible motive would you have to lie on the defendant versus the guy he's known for two months well the answer is because he was terrified of what the defendant said because more were told him to do it to deflect blame for more so this was testimony that should have been allowed in this for it was reversible error to preclude the defense from going if cross examination the last issue i will briefly touch on is the improper transfer of this case by the juvenile court and it's really the process by which the juvenile court reached its decision to transfer the defendant that we take issue with in the proceedings below the juvenile court expressly abdicated its responsibility to take into account the best interest of the minor in determining whether or not to grant the state's motion to transfer  the justification for that was the court noted that when the statute was amended some ten years on war or more before language regarding the best interests of a minor have been removed however this court has held the supreme court has held at least one other  district has held at all since the statute has been amended at the fundamental purpose of the descriptor of a transfer here is to balance the interests of the minor against the interests of the state so the lens through which the trial or the juvenile court looked  a consideration in these circumstances now of course to consider whether the security of the public requires something as an adult who's does that mean that it's the best interest or that it's considered well i think that up presiding over mr wilson's case to the effect that she was concerned that this case would be reversed for this very reason but that she had no vehicle by which she could remain and the case back to juvenile court to necessity found him guilty on a theory of accountability and then we argue from that that the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty under that theory so i i  yes and that of course is based on their attack of morris credibility but the state did not offer any evidence there was no direct evidence or circumstantial evidence that anyone other than the defendant perpetrated the shooting the jury was challenge includes a charge for accountability so if you have three points to try for accountability so when the judge is looking at the other cases looking whether to transfer the murder case that necessarily includes the lesser included and the would point out that the main language of the statute is his as the child of set a balancing test but the one used to be was a balancing test for the court reconsider what's in the best interest of the minor and what's in the best interests of the public and transfer the case that it was not in the best interests of the minor and the public proceeding under the juvenile court law as a language what's in the best interest of the minor has been removed so now he's to be transferred if it's not in the best moving on to being the first to wish us and i believe we need to treat them together to feminist proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt defendant argues he wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was insufficient to prove accountability but testimony watson said that defendant said him and were trying to get money from this white guy and that he shot him twice in the back as they're running away so there's also watson's testimony and also  robbery they testified how the three man remained in the vestibule even though the door was open they could have followed them and they could have under before they got there they agree that the victim opened the door and said merry christmas while someone was carrying and belongings as he was moving shooting and after the shooting this is also corroborated by mckayla graves who hadn't seen more with the revolver in weeks when she had seen him the shotgun was offended i mean that more must have handled the gun because he wiped it down there's some are there any further questions on this issue counsel acknowledged that his cross examination was winding down his credibility couldn't be affected by events that hadn't happened yet and manner wasn't sent he did not know who the threats came from the threats were not specific to mandating own accountability instruction is appropriate in the belcher case for example there was testimony that both the defendant and his codefendant were were armed at the scene of the shooting and that both of them had and the two co defendants were seen walking together shortly before the shooting that the defendant had possession of the murder weapon and that the defendant then hid the murder weapon after the shooting the defendant himself will to the state's theory and there the testimony from byron moore was that he was in possession of a shotgun we know that a shotgun was not used right in the commission of this break that we covered with more correct ok the state's theory was that the defendant was armed with the murder weapon which was i believe a revolver that was your theory there was only one or more committed the shooting and that he tried to deflect responsibility for it on to the fourteen year old minor and that his testimony it was a lie from beginning to start ok forget forgetting to minute your client was in left the scene because mere presence at the scene of the shooting coupled with the flight from the scene shooting is not enough to prove accountability you have to prove that the defendant either intended to aid or abet the commission of and the short version of their testimony was that they proceeded in this all why did a visual to african american individuals they proceeded up stairs and then they heard shots they hear voices they heard a voice but they were absolutely ok absolutely because then he would be a part of the year over the years but again this is you know that the state can't have it both ways they can't reach a deal with myron or in exchange a theory from the very beginning from the time of the transfer hearing was that the defendants acted as principle that was the factual basis they presented regardless of it regardless of what the charge were the factual basis they presented to judge kate was this defendant committed the shooting and it was on that basis that judge because i have to believe a large component of his decision to transform this case was that the defendant was acting as the government but then we get to trial and the state changes course at the last minute not because they want to go through theory but because they want to give the jury another way to get there