honour's i will be discussing the birth issues raised in the briefs today probably was charged with knowingly failing to report him person every ninety days under section six of the sex offender registration act reading any of those provisions either the state presented no evidence the bucket moved three days before april eighteenth and there was no less specific evidence presented as to right identification he gave the what was require sex offenders are at all times a week we're reporting requirement involving right face to face contact between the sex offender and the police and on people only pearson is how that if you don't provide a proper proof address in addition to situations where you him two months and said you got a cut we'll extend this for two months and come back in the come back in that time on he did not come that when he was arrested it had been just over the two months a couple of points about that though was that when back within that time that's a yes or no question counts i'm he did not come back within that the two months and ninety days have not passed yet to two months have gone by but ninety days have not gone by and so he didn't come back with two months of think requires the state did not charge him under section three with failure to provide proof of address or fee or any of the details section six uses the word reporting section three something else about the hundred dollars the and i'm going to because not all sex offenders i have already roomed with pounds to pay still owes responsibility is that to bring it to the tension of the police the registering office of the hundred thousand he doesn't have hypothetically for a moment if he had come back in two months and said i still don't have one hundred dollars when the mechanism didn't kick in for registering this defendant without the payment of one hundred dollars i believe so  there was no evidence presented as to whether he tried to pay how much he had for the police said to him what's bothering me about this counsel and your client this was not the first go around for him he is a convicted sex offender he knows that turned him away really was not a reasonable thing to do once he was turned away and given a two month grace period to come that ruction happened then met two month period that's what i'm trying to get right and he did say a more or less requirement and a yearly acquirement that many sex offenders have and i think combat within the ninety days i think that would have been and he didn't have a chance to do that counsel do you think it's reasonable that he thought that it the police expected him to come back in ninety days instead of two months after thing when when when the police presented him with the deadline of two months dozens and that kind of change the doesn't that indicate that the expectation was registration act you like to address issues too this issue should be easily resolved based on people versus hall a recent decision from this court and  the statute is structured if you look at it together so you just found in this section that if you read this section and and a person who is required to report report without readers and the second so you just explain to us that it means more than showing up it means more than the party that correct that's correct so it doesn't include other words it's it's a conjunction report and register report of the offense the state had to prove in state was mentioned specifically in the indictment with the case number and the state entered the certified copy of the conviction at trial also  that one can become subject to the reporting requirements under the act requires some formal disposition of a sex offense as to the first issue the s ers to reporting in person and not necessarily registration certainly this isn't the only reporting requirement is not asking somebody sex crime to register in all the ways set out in section three every single week