the grouping as well as what that instruction read clearly literally what the state argues is that there's no way that jurors should have read that instruction literally in fact they should have that was their duty to follow the law that instruction  intent for the kill for the killing jus not as justification justification is transferred self defense which is recognised and people be matters which we cite in our brief that defense instruction is an instruction that goes to why mr randall was justified in other words if mr randall was justified in his use here's my problem with this case and that it's that is to use in the oral instruction of the word killed and i'm on e r eight one nine eight two zero zero zero as the judge is reading the instructions to the jury i'm starting at the bottom of the one nine nine twenty six describing when you've got a justifiable homicide and we're talking self defense homicide or justifiable or not unlawful when committed by any person in defens himself if he actually and reasonably believe that the individual killed intended to commit a forcible interest crime docket i don't know but of course this is not self defense because the person who actually was killed so this  because as literally understood if the jury was focusing on it there's no valid self defense here because the person killed was not the person threatening that is precisely the argument your honor here's my problem that's what the transcript santas the actual instruction i went into the jury doesn't have the word killed and and we know from earlier on that the trial judge the liberally took the word out of the instruction for precisely the reason that we're here discussing so i don't know whether the question of right or wrong but i do know that the written instruction of those into the jury which you will find on one zero eight four jury and i think that the state court of appeal relied on that fact as well what are we supposed to do with that i mean you know even your client's lawyer at trial looked at this set of instructions and felt of course i can argue self defense the prosecution never corrected him or her on that and so why wouldn't the jury having heard i mean basically the entire closing argument was a focus on the defense of self defense why when the jury come away thinking well jeez that's all the lawyers talked about  i'm i'm just saying in terms of what the jury is hearing from your client's lawyer is of course this was in self defense here's my theory not no explanation of you know don't worry about the fact that it was someone other than mr mom  there's no rebuttal from the prosecution saying jurors you can't apply self defense because you know that the aggressor wasn't the one killed there's never any discussion of that so why would i guess your your argument has to be that the jury read these instructions and felt arrive at this sort of compromise verdict also he that must be in consideration with the justifiable defense instruction with the characterization that is recognize that that they found there they may have simply determined that he did not exercise care sufficient care  in exercising his right to self defense and they settled on the voluntary manslaughter my time ok thank you that whatever intent he opted to share had at the time of the killing transfers to whoever the ultimate victim was and so here she was the ultimate victim and so in light of all of the instructions the jury could clearly understand that to how bad a state of affairs just recreate with respect your honor i believe that that instruction if it was given by itself to the jury without any other instruction surrounding it the jury would have been led to understand that the only person they can use it again self defense instructions that were available i got that so i'm asking you what other instructions that were given take care of the problem that is created by the instruction that's causing me the difficulty well the and reasonably believe that the individual killed intended to commit etc etc so eight point six five says when one attempts to kill a certain person so that would be the individual killed in five point one be killed has been killed so eight point six five by its terms very specifically modifies intent toward any particular person that is killed so here this was judith's shine and understanding that defense counsel clearly pushing for first degree felony murder which is murder in the you know in the course of this robbery in rebuttal the prosecutor did not say oh well you know here you can't have self defense toward the ultimate victim because you're the only self defense was victim you know doesn't get the transferred intent but that the appellant i'm sorry that the tissue nurse the need for self defense was unreasonable and here the jury ultimately rejected in the closing because it doesn't help the defense it's geared to help the prosecution at least in a case where you know intent in terms of the crime that the charge that is transferred to a different person again is helping the when eight point six five says you know the intent is any transfers it also found that the lack of intent if any also transfers so here we have the lack of intent to kill here we have  justified you know if the jury work to believe that it was justified and reasonable belief in the need to use deadly force that same belief and that same intent would transfer and would erase the lack of intent with respect to a third party with respect to a victim and that's what the court of appeal here found was i can't even i don't even read it that way i'd be shocked if any layperson read it that way maybe from a lawyer standpoint you know you can i about the timing of it just if that happens and mr randall fires in response what's the theory under which that could be imperfect so if he believed at the moment he actually fired the gun that it was no longer reasonable  someone heard one voice say one threatening thing someone heard something else and there was really an issue of whether appellant or i'm sorry whether petitioner fired first who threatened first  had a reasonable belief he you know he tried to conduct his drug deal and it went bad and now he gets to walk away scot free the prosecution was focused on felony murder the prosecution was not focused on letting him have the benefit of perfect selfishness that was the there like oh yeah you know i am in reasonable fear of my life as soon as that happens i mean this is not some this is not my friend sort of plan around what i'm doing target practice this is some guy in a parking lot who comes upon me draws just pointed at me at that point i am in reasonable fear my life i think you would be too i mean you could have been the nation fires back immediately i may be under an actual fear of my life that it may or may not be reasonable instructions here there are eight point six five five point three zero one point one five point one three point one two five point zero in order for the jurors to have understood mr randall