will be attorneys that are going to present arguments today to step up and identify yourself  court your honors the ultimate question in this case is whether the evidence was sufficient to show the police saw anthony jones with a handgun because the evidence does not allow for reasonable inference and that a gun was subsequently subsequently recovered on a busy street over which jones exercised no control so in this case i think if the officer testified i saw him with a gun and a gun is recovered that's going to corroborate the statement perhaps even if the officer said i think i saw something that looked like a gun the problem here is that his testimony was so big i pod the opposite for being honest but he he just didn't see anything where we know there are other people around and could have been any number of things also the officer didn't see the object hit the ground so we don't really know that sounds even connected to whatever object was thrown in for instance and no weapons convictions so the officer is very close to him while chasing him and a stranger recognize a gun so the fact that he could not see a gun from ten feet away when he ran right past the  well i just i think it's not enough to connect the sound to the object i think it was really paying attention to what they thinking sound was or was he he attention to the person he was that was trying to move him he was he's here right i mean that's actually i think where the problem comes in he was probably playing paying attention to mr jones however nobody that leaves an absence of evidence and in this case yet we have other people who are also being chased  running in that direction so that little sound could have you know there's no testimony about what those people were doing or whether the sounds of possibly come from them like the officer who actually was hovering over the weapon when the initial officer comes back and he says he's you know observing it doesn't that corroborate the this action because it was located in the area where the officer said he saw and i think it would corroborate the confession if the officer identified the object as the object he saw but there was no evidence of that did the state did introduce the gun and the officer never identified it as the know there is obviously going to be found on the street the question is whether it was the object my client possessed and we have other people in the area who could have been prompted to drop a weapon in the presence of police activity  maybe should have done in this case in that case st of all we're dealing with different circumstances if that was not a case involving a chase through a heavily trafficked busy area with a liquor store right in the same area where the gun was found it was in a private residential street somewhere in the work the th district area so we have only one but two possibilities in that case is the gun was either but the fence or the owners of the property on to which he threw it and the state called the owners of the property to testify that it was not their gun so here i mean the state didn't present any testimony from anybody else that was out there disclaiming ownership of the gun and that that really distinguishes the two situations right they there's no real constructive possession argument so the question is really is the officer's testimony about an object enough to establish that the gun was that object and it's just you know i from the officer ever claiming that he saw something that looked like a gun i think he got up there and just said i saw something that you know it is so my training and experience was about same size as gun about the same shape and then you find a gun that's not pro seconds up to a couple of minutes but it doesn't take much time for somebody to drop a gun particularly you know there are a lot of people out in an officer chasing somebody one way he's like you're on to mention the officers focused on my client not the fifteen other people who are out there or that you know we ask you we ask you say to a firm the pellet empty shells conviction because the defendant was proven guilty beyond by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt there's more than enough evidence here that proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt officer garcia testified credibly they responded to a call of a person with a gun when he arrived on scene he saw that person that matched the description of the car locked in on that person after locking it on that  exact time period but it was a very brief it was very very finally there was a also of confession by the defendant where he admitted he admitted to having a gun and subsequently running w one else was in there i think person had there was evidence of his residency at that location and then the other piece involved the throwing of a gun or an object into a yard and they had testimony the state presented testimony in that case that the owners of that property said to me we have the weapons there's nothing here that wants to go how do you distinguish that this is a this is an object that's found in basically out in the street well i subsequently recovered and i case although there were there were other people in the area it was found in the exact location where officer garcia saw it wrong so there was no testimony there was other people there was  so here this is a classic case of circumstantial is a classic actual possession circumstantial case of actual possession here and its actual possession because officer garcia saw the defendant actually possess a black object he saw him throw that object and it was subsequently recovered by a additional officer and then exact location that it was found so that the state's position and there's no need to distinguish whether it's actual possession or or constructive properly look at the witnesses examine their testimony and examine their credibility and without there being something extreme in the contrary to reverse the trial court's reviewing of the evidence we hold at this level issue not be disturbed the trial court had the opportunity to do credibility to examine the credibility of the officer and they deem the officer credible in this case well in this case although not built solely on oral confession there was credible eyewitness testimony that saw the defendant throw a black object that was subsequently recovered and this case was not based only on the confession of the defendant and even without the confession of the defendant we hope this was still a strong circumstantial evidence case here today suppressed in that case and there was no evidence introduced here of a gun so that's no basis to distinguish the case anything further there are no further questions your honor the rest of your verse mr jones convictions all right