there is some evidence and again i'm going to go back to the jury could have found that saying i don't know what happened but i know that there is some evidence that gladney initiated violence by punching mcdonald and there is some and was there seen evidence for it by the jury yes yes it was introduced during the consequences as far as the blood tests that were done on the defendant the victim i know the defendant was found to have or the there was no test done for the defendant but he was very and there was us so mutual combat sorry i'm so sorry  two one on the chest one in the arm or relatively so on the one on the face the reason why it was so serious is because it hit the carotid artery the medical examiner testified that this was not something that could have been predicted that if one were to aim for the carotid artery one would probably three staff and i'm not reading that was accidental but that there was some evidence from which the jury could have found a lesson to mental states the jury could have found either recklessness or unmitigated state so that he was the jury could have found that that was simply someone speaking in shock his actions after the incident were certainly not that of a cold blooded killer someone who have the mindset of quickly thinking a bit offensive extremely intoxicated  upset he was screaming out for help and begging larry sorry gliding not to die so i think that the jury did well the found the back comment was his own defense mechanism i can't believe that this happened can't believe you know not someone who  deliberately setting out to murder his partner who he loved all of this evidence also also is sufficient to justify involuntary manslaughter instructions involuntary justify the giving of an instruction is a question of law and it is well settled that all purely legal questions are reviewed you know so in that sense i think this report is probably clarifying some confusion and it's not the t ore the grand jury was that the victim hit out get out the reason this is to it this is significant is that it it's accurate with what she saw which is my second point to her by there was an eyewitness charlotte davis was an eyewitness to this murder she heard that you arguing she stepped outside there was a light over the top is that true i mean somebody actually saw the stamping except you say her testimony was that she stepped out she could see the here's why when she turned testimony was that the defendant was pulling the bike and he was holding the butcher knife her testimony was that larry had nothing in his hands he was pulling the bike back and he said don't mess with my bike and then she heard and she could she saw the family is that what you're saying was she she was looking down the steps for the testimony was that she was looking down the steps and she saw the struggle of the bike she saw glaring with she saw she saw the defendant holding the victim didn't have any defensive wounds and that's also significant here i think the medical the medical evidence tells the story here let me also the face i understand no no he did not he had three stab wounds once twice three times through the che bone into the carotid artery almost completely severed and those those injuries are absolutely refute involuntary manslaughter instruction here those injuries show that this wasn't reckless conduct at the very least the case when one person has a deadly weapon and the other person has nothing there isn't provocation struction is not warranted and that's exactly what happened here in those cases there was actually a fight there was a struggle but in our  case the victim is pulling his bike away hitting out in a defensive way to get away from the to get away from the defendant walk of course to defend his property defend himself when this stand when this night comes down into his face let me ask you another question davis came out after she heard them arguing when they were on the stairs and that's where the struggle of the bike happened and that's where the south happened upon how do you how do you reconcile that with the that was not we will come back i mean nobody saw how it so so let's say hypothetically that the victim somehow engaged in provoked the defendant first before she saw anything she comes out and now he's pulling away from defendant he tried to get away from defendant let's say that happened still under the case law under austin under young under sutton because the victim did not have a death weapon because the victim had nothing in his hands but pulling his bike away this this does not warrant a provocation struction here and even if we go beyond that the fact that one party has a deadly weapon and one party doesn't the response was absolutely out of portion if we pretend that there was some sort of a hit some sort of a something that the victim did here to provide to to provoke the defendant stabbing him three times would be absolutely disproportionate and that's exactly what happened in austin and so as far as what the burden is on the defendant to provide evidence that that instruction should be given the second i proposed hearings where they have to show us until i mean what's w this this these actions of defended it when that when they were just looking at the evidence and decided to give this instruction are very significant this wasn't a heat of the moment a spontaneous argument to happen between these two men where there was a knife that was being scuffle every cased the defense relies on there is a scuffle over a knife or there is or there are two knives completely different actual situation and what happened here that just assume or it's question is there  support giving this introduction and and there was no washington does not apply here because washington talked about the self defense instruction and the board said in washington if you're going to give self defense you've got to give the mandatory counterpart which is second degree and reasonable the jury has to decide that question that's the holding of washington washington does not apply here the rationale doesn't apply here is what about the standard of review that they say in washington is do you know it's denote the noble in that case because the giv court must give the mandatory counterpart which is the under reasonable even self defense of second degree murder that question goes to the jury to decide whether the defendant in a hypothetical case is acting reasonably or on reasonably you glean now from washington this report doesn't say that in just completing an involuntary manslaughter instruction the defendant here voluntarily and willfully committed this act that's that's that's the question that had a natural tendency to cause great bodily harm at the very least so maybe it's a lucky shot that he defense raises that issue which they did in their case in chief and that statement somebody stabs him goes directly against the idea that he was acting in self defense and to that note even if this court were to find that if the court that the truck or erred in not giving these instructions there was no prejudice and here because this was not an all or nothing trial the jury got instructed on self defense and on the other reasonable even self discretion if there if there is sufficient evidence and the trial court and eyes instructions and washington was not limited to self defense washington said that if the question of whether there is sufficient evidence  evidence limited to evidence and the state had an opportunity to present any rebuttal to self defense in this case and she did not do so the way it chose to introduce that evidence was there