dislocated dislocated shoulder a broken ankle these were severe but when we consider the facts that were presented in a deuce the trial as to didn't basically testified that he was struck once his memory was fall and he doesn't recall much of what happened after that what he does recall is that three coming to basically on the ground  adonis snyder who testified at trial that he as he came outside witnessed his friend's companion william carmichael on the ground struggling with  and thought that he would be responsible for them and that's why he was not forthcoming early on but there was no real evidence to the contrary and so the reason this is important likely to occur and so i think the court was really focused on the nature of mr townsend injuries as opposed to the force actually used by mr carmichael and when you in the aggregate look at all of the facts you consider all of the testimony that was presented at trial and all the evidence of use it it was probably improper i summited it that's originally i think the definition section of aggravated battery arm in a public way omitted the words without legal justification was the first argument and maybe that in an battery or great bodily harm in all likelihood the jury did not even give to the second prong of that instruction the self defense instruction if you was acquitted on that count based on self battery they probably are let's look at just hard on a public way the instruction is given it is the way it is written the jury and what would be required closing argument i mean we don't look at he seemed all part of the instruction and say well maybe that was problematic or was problematic without looking at whether or not there is the likelihood jury was misled or confuse and some would argue perhaps stay that the rest of the instructions of the argument and the way the case was tr precludes the notion that the jury didn't know what it was doing and i will submit that a close reading of the transcripts of what transpired as you say how it was argued how the evidence came there was a great i don't think it is reason to believe that he there was no way for sustained by mr townsend that might be one factor for the court to consider yes you know the nation extent of the injuries you receive one factor but you can't do it the exclusion of all others and when you look at the facts of this case that's that's kind of what the court did you know to say that the jury can work through this instruction and figure it out is this is i you know i i don't find that really a valid argument i'm a lawyer i'm five years and i am having tremendous difficulty  force and in the second paragraph however the person has justified the use of force it almost precludes one from saying mr carmichael was it elevates the burden of what he needs to do to defend basically to to successfully throw bail on the self defense theory on tap one he has to show that he wasn't great think i think everybody involved in this case the judge the lawyers were looking to be injuries there was a great amount of deaths was placed by they brought in the doctor other than that there was no other testimony there's no other evidence that the his ankle could have been broken or shoulders located absent this fall and the fall only occurs after mr snyder  oh i guess i need to know with the facts that you know if given the facts of this case a single punch without really much more description other than mr townsend saying you know i at that point i remember waking up on the ground  great pain there was no testimony that you was writhing in pain couldn't speak none of that comes until after he has hit the ground so i don't know if that's the result of a fault i don't know if that's the result of a punch and  how is that you're confused well i'm too clearly looking at it after the fact and your client is spam not guilty of that which could be considered more serious and that maybe because there is a third actor who could have been responsible for some of those other injuries and the jury knew that there was a self defense issue but it's pretty clear that there was a strike and that caused some harm and the jury concluded that your client was really the aggressor really confused about that because of the instructions i you know i don't know you know in order for the definitive be found not guilty on fear of imminent death and great bodily harm himself twenty four dash twenty five point zero six and here it is this case is just state only to have slight evidence on his theory in order to justify the giving of an instruction and the defendant keeps insisting that while going through one punch but that is only something that the defendant testified to and that is his theory of the case and the rules recognize that parties are entitled to instructions on each of the respective theories of the case on his way to killing parents and that certainly in combination with injuries actually sustains the fact that the defendant's even his first punch was substantial enough to cause excruciating pain to towns only one of those two is required it doesn't have to be both likely or intended to cause that either one of the split enough and here it seems like both are down there with respect to the trial court on focusing on the injuries than one punch for example and how these injuries were actually sustains it's at least within the prosecution's theory of the case that the defendant was responsible for putting these extra injuries and not science or as an intervening actor size dealing with like a murder case dealing with one punch that's that's enough is it has to fit a victim here is not killed this is not a situation where it has to be a murder it has only need to be like your mission of without loss what justification language in section and i p a criminal eleven point one five which is a separate issue actually but here with in respect of these instructions the jury was properly instructed and if it i the case that because the facts of the case defendants on able succeed on the self defense theory that is only because the jury would accept that the defendant's conduct was intended or likely to cause great bodily harm and therefore qualifies the defendant right of self defense it does not elevate the burden because there is no burden on the defendant to prove self defense state's burden always says and was in this case to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt but because the sense of self sense was qualified by the possibility or the fact that the jury could find because this admission came in the definition structure not the issues instruction and even under huck said and cook it's not very fair if combined with the argument successfully crisis with jury the prosecution's burden to prove disprove the today he said that he after being punched first append is testifying that he's acting to defend himself but if you read this testimony carefully first like claims to protect himself by grabbing thompson's legs which of course that's something that happens and this just shows that the defendant was acting in retaliation and there's evidence that accords we see the defendant tons of new salacious racial slur against defendant and that pete townsend a punched first and if that provides a motive that was great but that was aggravated battery on a public way that caused harm that that was not justified by self defense it was an act of retaliation and nothing more and there is no real evidence of a conflict as to whether defendant was justified in point one six which is the equivalent of more like thirteen beers he had reason to perhaps shake his testimony as well to preserve a civil lawsuit that he had filed or avoided dram shop case reasonable inferences i don't know that that's reasonable and we certainly when we look at the aggregate of these facts collectively a punch didn't cause a dislocated shoulder or a broken ankle they can offer some i guess collateral background but that that doesn't rise to the level of a battery in words or are words that you know i don't know what to take away from that like what i do know is that defendant was and it's not just his theory of the case it's based on what the evidence was in and i think it's i think too much emphasis was placed placed on and