is that it's highly doubtful whether or not a jury would conclude based on those the nature of the injury and the other evidence in this case suggesting that this land did not intend or ergo it's highly doubtful that the jury would assumes that the trial court appropriately applied the law unless there's some sort of explicit indication to the contrary and in that case not only did the court assume that it was clear from the court's explicit  discredited defendants doesn't let me do this regarding me in the jury instructions going to you're saying that the there was one fail to address specific intent in the animal cruelty charge but was the the elements instruction that laid out each of the elements that had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury could find him guilty and did that was that is structured adequate  that the defendant had to intentionally in this case intentionally put the chain around criminals neck rather than in head that the chain would cause the what little what if what if an individual intent purposely did not feed an animal that the person but you're saying that you're not presenting reasonable doubt challenge but that almost sounds like a reasonable doubt issue well you're right i mean obviously you know we haven't specifically said that any reasonable jury could conclude this lands intended to hurt herself it's kind of questionable whether anybody could based on i mean three chief factors one the fact that the necklace the injury was so strange second the fact that there was much more obvious reason for placing the chain or most of which was is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have reached the same conviction that they did even if they had been instructed now that intent was misnamed sole defense the defense counsel presented a trial say th mostly balance i mean your honor if the if what the statute requires there was negligence obviously this would present a different question but what the state had to show was that misplay and intended to to suffer the serious injury they did that she placed the chain around his neck intending that it sink into his flesh but would it be reasonable to conclude if you're going to put a three point four power back oh chain around the aware with their putting a three point four lb told chain around the dog's neck then that terrible things are going to happen your own are not necessarily i mean i certainly wasn't where you have a dog sir not since i was all right i wouldn't i would not have done this put off but the fact that i wouldn't have done so doesn't mean that anybody who would do so was necessarily intending that the dog suffer a serious injury  more would they have to prove that she made a statement that i'm putting this three point four chain on this dog for the purpose of and i'm going to leave it on there for five weeks i don't care what happens to the stock is that's a sort of happiness that you're looking for a certain way that would probably satisfy your own but if there's a better there's there are other ways to show the state in this case basically positive this five to seven week period we know what happened at the end of it we know it was happening before the beginning of it but there's no testimony regarding how quickly the injury developed how soon it would have been obvious mistake we allow the jury to make inferences based on the evidence that is available because sometimes we don't have all the evidence that you'd like to see obviously a jury can draw whatever inferences that's a reasonable fact finder could make from the evidence presented to trial but that's not such an indicative that they are going to reach that it's in this case there was on one of the first things that she said is the dog any even my yesternight that was so he knew something was going on with that dog then she well out it was clear your honor from a lot of the testimony regarding  her taking her knowledge of the veterinarian and the police visit afterwards that she was ashamed of the fact that this had happened to her mellow while she was taking care of i mean it was a horrible injury and she was one of the dogs scared she was not properly instructed jury and if they are not instructed properly we have to address the issue whether that failure to instruct properly impinge upon the defendant's fair trial absolutely still not so what what is the jury instruction doesn't have to be one hundred percent accurate to work but we have to determine this whether or not the jury was properly instructed in order to offer that verdict in this case there's absolutely no doubt about that there what the defense attorney was arguing in closing arguments was that the state was required to prove intent to kill and that is not the statute requires it improves it requires us to prove specific intention it was a or kill that was unless the state clearly i'm sure the legislature clearly intended specific intent crime every element of the offense has to be accompanied by a mental state on when there's one elements listed for the entire statute