errands and suggs admitted that he sold cocaine to rodriguez on the day in question because rodriguez have been caught up in the earlier drive by he was cooperated with the police and they had set up video only surveillance of his apartment they gave him one hundred fifty dollars and recorded and new i walk out of range to the left opposite of the door however newton walks that indicate range and he's alone on the camera until the other men enter the frame then sides in new leave together such as testified and admitted that he sold the cocaine officer approached them when ordered to the ground newton comply then rolled and threw some money into the suit that money was later read that money was covered mediately by officer shively and give an officer brown who wrote up a report two weeks later and then testified at trial that the recovered bills included two fifty dollar bills they matched the serial numbers on the by money and then he corrected that testimony later being when he was shown the original report based on these facts the state failed to prove to faria newton guilty of unlawful to the re of a controlled substance because there is no evidence the new shared a common intent with sobs to sell drugs on january first two thousand and fifteen the state didn't have a witness to this transaction because their confidential informant rodrigues was on cooperated and locked the country and although newton was in possession of this money in his arrest it's questionable whether it was the mark money from the transaction and even if it was it doesn't establish that he assisted in the planning of this offense and should be held accountable for the sale of the stated argued that they were working together that suggs had the drugs and defendant took the money but the state has to prove that before during the commission of the offense he had the intent of this attempt to throw the money away supports an inference of guilt but here accountability attaches only before our arms or before during the commission of the offense and the fact that he developed knowledge later is not group an intent doing the money as he told the police in his interview when the when the police were following him he felt that this might be tainted because he didn't basically what it was something that he had picked and told pick up from his from tugs and he didn't know where came from and he didn't know what was implied he didn't know if something was it because it wasn't his originally it made him uncomfortable to be holding it w stopped by the police and again that he later became concerned that he might have picked up something illegal doesn't establish that he knowingly planned episcopate in this transaction and i would just ask that because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly participated in this prepared the by money so that it was a hundred dollar bill to twenty well yes he's an airy caressing self but don't the serial numbers match or the mark he testifies to trial yes that everything matches but he original report record of this money is being completely different bills not completely well to fifty dollar bills and seven hundred dollars with the serial numbers which that's pretty honors except that my client had to buy it doesn't it doesn't mean though that he did participate in the sale when the explanation is he was asked to pick up the money in order to buy alcohol for  be simply taken the closing argument from the trial and presenting it here today it's the exact same argument and the truck jury below simply didn't buy the finished playing th tried to throw away matched serial numbers that have been reported that proves that the defendant had by putting the claim was that he was given the money by so as they left the house to go buy drop go buy you know buy alcohol and that for some unknown reason he got suspicious when the police called him and he sort of threw the money away but the claim that he was handed the money as he left was refuted by the take the video tape of the thing where she handed the money by the buyer this is not just picking up the money from the table the six he has shown being handed the money by the buyer when he leaves the house leave the house with the money and trash overweigh a reasonable jury based upon th same dealer to the same address on two separate occasions and the jury was supposed to believe that this guy is just simply an innocent bystander who for some unknown reason to set of this throw away one hundred fifty dollars when were confronted by the police the jury was not required to believe that testimony or that inference evidence was he was there at this he was h saying in my personal experience my personal knowledge this place is first christian church is a fact church and was operational on the day of this offense i've seen cars there regularly which still looks like the most modern fiore temple is a residence in bloomington normal rather than a church and then the star from places don't have necessarily have crosses out in front and there might be a church if can read it on the gold lettering on the window because it was previously an insurance agent office or something like that i i mun able to comprehend why police officers and states attorneys can't do a better job demonstrating this important fact though i don't disagree with you regarding the facts of this particular passion this case and press out there there you're correct that there could be other cases where there could be a closer question but given there should never be a closer question asked the point i mean it's something that's so easily verifiable that you can't just the squints point in something very troubling because we're talking some serious stuff here whatever little sympathy i might have thinking back to those days has entirely got here i just can't understand it where has this court these people in everything you take a picture of it all that way but you know you have to do that just say yes this myth that issue in this case is is this building here first the people street a church it's your church we did you could come here to offer all think it was all done right there still be looking for layoffs but the other thing is that when you don't use all your time your argument it gives us a chance to yes the use of mouth being was active as a church everything the detective berman testified to was that he knew this building was active that there were cars using the parking lot doesn't mean that the building is being used as an active church it just means as he pointed out he wanted to park in that parking lot several times for his part as part of his job to absorb people observe i'm sorry people but he didn't want to be disturbed or cause problems he observed sign per church but if you look at the sign it's a big heavy sign there's nothing it doesn't have the sort of lettering that you change or what we now see the electronic lettering there is nothing to show that that signage was being updated or any way show that that building was being used as an act of church and i think that's the question here is the building active or is it active as a church and when you talk about the different buildings in bloomington what comes to my mind is every day as i turn  catty corner from our office is a building that has changed hands repeatedly and for a while it was the church of the broken chains it was a church where people who were in motorcycle groups gathered and that's signage remained on that building for several years when it looked more and more deserted and then it became a vintage store and then in and when somebody buys a building you change the signage but when the building is simply abandoned signage is going to probably remain so i do think that there