libby was still kind of worked up he was he had been drinking himself he was in a bit of a excited emotional state so he followed mr robson off the sidewalk and he yelled a few comments sort to him he you was it determined whether or not the punch or the intervening factor that gentleman falling on the pavement in hitting his head actually caused his death well the medical testimony established that it consciously aware that their conduct is practically certain to cause a particular result and in this circumstance in this case the state alleged that mr navy was consciously aware that a single beerfest of lho was practically certain established forces of loss in a prison was established you just have two individuals who got into a brief scuffle and unfortunately someone died but the the murder statute shouldn't be  to reach a situation such as this and there's a long line of cases starting to people be cringe all that reaffirms us principal of the most recent case was people feeling he'll came out of the first district decided last year we had a situation very similar to this one where we had a twenty one year old defendant who got into an altercation with his fifty five year old father the twenty one year of an occupation turned white violent when first thing we have to look at is the standard of review obviously it's strong in this case it's looking at the evidence in the light most favorable prosecution allowing all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution and  determining whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt here there's only one element in dispute and that's whether when defendant punch mr robertson whether he knew that such actually created a strong probability of great bodily harm that's what we're looking at here the jury inferred that he did know that his hunch would lead to or would cause great bodily harm that was not isn't reasonable inference for the jury it ma y as for these long standing principle in crenshaw i'm sure this court's aware as is the state that this this case is almost one hundred years old it's been cited only a handful of times that the actual circumstances of any of the other cases that have distinguished the crenshaw case not not a murder case but the the federal case which i cited the first district  statute that he's charged under is much more important than the the elements of the statute of murder is much more important than twenty one people versus the element that we that the jury had to prove here that i'm defending guilty was only that he knew that his aunt would create a strong probability of great bodily harm to the victim that's the element in its lowest form the lowest hurdle but the jury had reasonably infer i know it didn't happen here but i'm just wondering what defendant have been entitled to some type of instruction had been presented regarding the law of the bare faced it was are included  that a single beer fist punch is not sufficient you know to convict someone of murder but they were aware of the much more important element that they have proof here that the knowledge of great bodily harm or are a substantial strong probability of great bodily harm what about the fact that where this occurred mean obviously everyone was aware that you had the street there and i think the jury could reasonably think that if you punch someone on the street you know when it's likely that they're going to fall on the street and hit themselves in the head or whatever that you know that would satisfy what was necessary but again i get back to that they were unaware of this long standing rule few days later of the stroke the appellate court held that this wouldn't this was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant for murder because of the unusual circumstance that here the defendant the victim died of blunt force head from a direct fall resulting from a punch of course a punch of this magnitude this guy was six one two hundred twenty pounds the guy's going to fall down and he's going to fall down where he will be crenshaw if the work or distinguish the the facts and its case from crenshaw finding that there was a disparity in size from the the two individuals and therefore and a few other cases and they do like you said distinguish based on the disparity in size or is fair to an age for something like that so if that's the what we need to have is the of the foundation of our analysis what is it that the spanglish has this case the facts in this case from the holding of cringe the just the totality of the circumstances we have here a bigger defendant not much bigger he had thirty two pound bombs he was a big guy six one to twenty he had three inches on the victim he was ten years younger than the victim all these aren't that big of sperry's however they should  the jury heard the medical testimony he had multiple fractures in his face his know his cheek bone was broken is nasal bones broken the upper part of his job was broken there was a witness to testify that the guy was unconscious before even hitting the ground whether of course this guy's not a doctor so whether that's true or not isn't really the point the point is the suit that goes to the severity of the punch basically this was defendant encounter and then eventually attacked him right yes it's unclear on the record whether the victim pushed her punched him to sell but the record suggests that it wasn't that it wasn't a full blown assault by the victim here and at any point that it dissipated within the new location with no longer even a public farewell it was on a public street and the there was some distance between unprovoked by the by the victim here especially when a witness said that very thing the witness was that still who had gave prior inconsistent statements however these inconsistent statements were locked foreseeable he was scared of defendant he gave the prior prior statements while definit in the presence of defendant or directly after the incident in fact defendant even said to the police that he was going to kick this guy but for reading him out so he had every reason to lie in the jury had every reason to believe his trial testimony over his prior inconsistent statements the jury was aware of he inconsistent statements as well so and they're obviously in the best position to evaluate the credibility of that witness the main thing is that as this court stated in summers evidence the defendant committed a voluntary and willful the victim in the face with every amount of strength that he had had the natural tendency to cause great bodily harm this was not against her this was not so on reasonable that any rational prior track to could find the defendant guilty of the sleazy of the evidence standard when we're especially when we're looking at with the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution as required here is a strong probability the same thing as a for and again the l the element that the jury had to prove here or had a fine print the evidence proved was that these acts created a strong probability of great bodily harm that's the low hurdle they had to get over and their inference that that this evidence did prove that was not unreasonable