please the court counsel my name is katherine cases that people say to our people versus giles and which is the fourth district case where people were says thomas and also in the court specifically found that because no evidence was introduced that the defendant had lighted anyone who refused to answer questions that the state had failed to prove an affirmative act of concealment thomas is even more on line with this case because in thomas the defendant was questioned there was a shooting to defend it was questioned about the shooter and he gave a very often allowed people to stay in his apartment his apartment was below bootleggers it happens to be in the basement but it is a separate residence or apartment separate unit he does hear the knock and then there's another knock six forty five holly answers the door in his boxers and told the person that he's beat him up stairs in the bar and he puts on clothes and then he goes upstairs now the testimony from lee did is both that paul said well it's the police i'm going to go upstairs i'm not going to see anything but but then we'd also testified that he didn't know that it on cross examination and he didn't know it was the police until he went upstairs and he went over and looked at the surveillance of preventing could see that there were police officers there there is no testimony from ten of paul ever told him to hide or conceal bottles of weather more connie may or may not have told me to and we're not conceding that he did leave it was not a great witness and his testimony as i said initially told them he didn't tell the police say it wasn't until later but even if that was the case that occurs later it occurs after the police are already gone so it has nothing to do with whether we're kone induced him to conceal himself in this part when the police are there oh did he know about the accident well it's not clear how much he knew about yes they did she testified at trial that he told more kone that he had an animal or possibly a human and that's that's all he knows that's all that leads testifies to he doesn't go into detail about what he told morricone more connie doesn't testify so what we have is the police officers co bootleggers and they talk to paul more connie because he's the owner of the bar that is near yes and they asked him about timothy dunbar who was the one person who stayed at the scene of the crime and they asked him about t to that he said both so he was home marconi was never asked specifically about the accident and he didn't really have any information to give because he wasn't there and even from  in all three of these charges and it's more than simply saying yes you can stay in my apartment as especially in the expression of obstruction of justice charge the way that the state charged that the crime latest doesn't tell us nobody told us what they talked about i don't know what they talked for an hour but it's the state's burden just to prove that paul marconi induced leverage and it's simply the evidence is simply not there likewise county gave them some information he did not lie and the case is that you have to do more than simply not provide all the information under people versus thomas in that case the defendant it was his first  shooter and the police he didn't tell that to the police he just said give age they description of the man and a week later when he finally said oh well the shooter was my cousin and they ended up charging him w her said no that's not enough there has to be more than simply the failure to present the information and this case the state didn't prove that affirmative act homer county was an asteroid we need not late but paul marconi did what he did conciliar we may feel that that was not the right course morally but it is not a crime and that is really what is the bottom line here is that there had to be more than what happened to prove all three of and that's basically the crux of the case it's looking at these facts and seeing whether they prove an affirmative act and if you look at the facts they don't show an affirmative act of eating or ceiling or juicing to conceal it simply is not there and when they're looked at as a whole it doesn't sustain the charge court uses is there's a fairly lengthy description of the common law accomplice after the fact law and federal law and so the legislature certainly had a chance after  such and they didn't do that i think the idea is that in order to be guilty of a crime you have to do more than simply acquiesce to letting somebody stand your partner there has to be more i think that that's ok there are there are areas of law where the public may not be entirely comfortable but they can still recognize that there should be a line between criminal behavior behavior that maybe we're not totally thrilled and that's the discussion that this court has indulged in at the end where it talks about how often or you want a car or someone's you know breaking the law for however nothing that the defendant can do to induce him to further conceal itself because he was already being sealed i don't see that that's the issue and the issue is whether he introduced him to further to remain sealed when the police come knocking on that basement apartment door and he's essentially when even even to the point even if he did not tell that it the police are at the door stay hiding it's a case where he did say i'm not going to turn you into the police i'm not going to talk to the police he just says i'm not going to s hours later he has to at least in her own mind that that was the police who are investigating this this recent accident which happened not too far away so when the reference to them i mean  babbage police also asked the defendant why these vehicles were in the parking high and rather than giving truthful answers to those questions one of the replies quoted is simply that the defendant claims that max and maybe a guy named mike were in the park so it's not a situation where there is simply a filthy rich report a crime of which he was aware that's like the dolls case or simply that he refuses to provide any information whatsoever or remain silent now if you look more like the half truths is half true then they're also half false and at least the false part of it is in fact affirming the facts lying to police about his not concealing his knowledge of the crime that was committed and he knew because to prevent every pension so the fact that he's telling him go wash a truck off in the north end course these are south end of town trying to approach so go the other side of town and wash truck off and no one will know anything that really shows its intent to conceal prevent us to tell the police anything that constitutes harboring ending or concealing the fugitive at that time so we have in fact here are three separate affirmative access that constitute different  police did not ask anything pertinent to the investigation and just didn't really ask for the names didn't have it socially when he said you know anything i mean it's brought it up to say well if he's the street from where the accident happened for the jets this investigation is going nowhere and that was because palmer tony throughout this all in front of the investigation keeping them from getting the information that they were asking for he gave them some information about the suspect date information including the run as a person name but he doesn't tell them that the shooter is in fact his cousin so it's the exact same from actual information is here where individual was a participant in the acts that the proper asked me about this currently downstairs and based but they didn't ask him about the accident they were asking about tim dunbar and who was at the bar they said we're here about it said we're here about the act and who was in the car with him dunbar who left with so that was the information that was elicited from simms testimony and in fact the next day when si said hey you didn't tell me about him leaving as you just said well you didn't ask me the right questions and there was no dispute that since he did ask i'm not saying that this behavior spirit that we might find to be good  simply saying it is not a crime he did not lie to the police he answered their questions not with as much detail as would have maybe been what we would have liked but he did not lie he simply was v and that is what happened in people versus thomas the other thing about this investigation is that it took place strangely quickly the police were there at six forty five and by one o'clock to wages in the with the police station they they have a search warrant the very next day and it's by like turn o'clock that same morning that they have the video from a white apartment so they know there's three trucks and there were six or seven trucks in the parking lot of bootleggers that had been left behind  so this is a very quickly moving investigation and the police never ran away since plates of those trucks that were in the parking lot this is simply not a case of eating or consuming a few a fugitive anything from the facts so that's why the bar owner allows people to remain in apartment overnight so that they can sober what is at issue here is what