absolutely correct but here we have an exceptional case we have an exceptional case because the state clearly clearly failed to fulfill its burden the like as i mentioned earlier the stat also the state able to savage that mr wheeler can step constructively possessed of handguns have to establish constructive possession there must be knowledge of the presence of the weapon and in addition to that immediate and exclusive because according to police testimony when when the police officer actually open the glove box they are loose papers that were of steering the handgun took point that only the back side was exposed and this is when the police officer was actively to mr wheeler's trial counsel argued these things and some variation after the evidence had been presented that the gun itself wouldn't have been readily visible to mr ross when he was reaching for have easily a place that gun in there when he shoved his hand in there to remove that insurance information or that their party again that testimony is not enough to really show that mr miller place had been there and that testimony where brooks testify to actions if he says that he obtained the insurance card from the glove box luck with the pop up open and then looked in the rearview mirror of the police officer he's talking on the rear view mirror that's mounted to the windshield his direction now honest with respect to my second argument mr wheeler argues that defense counsel was ineffective for failing church quest that the trial judge directly answer the jury's question involving a very crucial only knew the guy was in the glove box if that if you crew you in on the objective the of this question the jury is essentially asking whether knowledge alone knowledge of the presence of the weapon alone is sufficient possession contrary to the state's argument on appeal the jury's uncertainty as to this meaning of knowing possession is illegal is an objective legal inquiry in that circumstance the jury was now your honor the state relies on people be hooker to demonstrate that the question posed by the jury is a question of fact and therefore the trial court was not obligated to miller disagrees with this conclusion because once again i want to emphasize because you're asking about a crucial element of law this is this is a legal objective legal firey there weren't asking whether mr real or new a handgun was in the  whether he had knowledge in general they're asking whether that's required component so there is a difference there there is a difference now you're honest with respect to the accomplice witness instruction as i mentioned defense counsel erred by failing to request that the trial court provide a couple swiss instruction and the reason being is questioning on cross examination he reiterated that he knew it was a gun as soon as he opened the glove box the picture of people who live in theory shows the gun situated as such in the glove box and it shows how much space  takes up in the glove box and i think it is covered partially by papers there but it is clearly evident the gun so officer visa's testimony was corroborated by that picture and gropes testified that you never seen that gun before the only logical inference the jury could make and it was at least a reasonable inference i would say see only the inference jury could make the defendant the gun in the glove box as the police were returning  again we have to remember looking at the pictures there were several papers in there sort of been roasted have to search through the glove box to find the specific piece of paper whatever the insurance card was so not only would he have seen  and i think that's of a logical inference a reasonable inference for the jury to make that there was not a gun in the glove box before and the other his other testimony was that he left what box open because  certain that during the closing arguments the prosecutor made that but he did not evidence that obviously if it was or gross was charged with the same crime as a defendant there was no there was because there's only two theories that the evidence presented here allows do the defendant put the gun in the glove box when the police officer was returning or the gun was already in the bottle for him those are the only t from the evidence presented at the lab here applying that to this question that are at the at the most least to the ultimate conclusion in the case at the very least it influences the ultimate conclusion of the case already received explicit instructions on the definition of the elements of the charge since the trial court apparently determine that the written instructions answered the jury's question on clarifying the charge the trial court therefore directed the jury to review the jury instruction supreme court agree that the jury instruction for readily understandable explain the charge offense this is key the trial course reference to those instructions should have been sufficient to clarify the issue for the jury the same thing happened here trial court reference the instructions that were clickable the jury's question in their response to the jury and presumably it did sufficient did it sufficiently clarify the issue for the jury because they didn't give me more they didn't have any more questions for the trial court and in fact defense counsel this is an ineffective that because i'm a compass witness instruction is not proper here that test which i cited first culture perching the test for determining whether a witness accomplice instruction accomplice witness instruction is needed cause that the trial then the accomplice witness instruction should be given here there is no evidence presented suggesting that gross was involved with this  on his testimony was one contradicted it was on the beach that he didn't see the gun and had never seen the gun before so here there is clearly not the requisite probable cause question if sort of puts us in on the fact that they're just asking this knowledge is knowledge enough to show that he has no it was russian to others this is a question of a legal inquiry this is not a question that jury instructions that address this question that's correct as they were instructed as to actually session constructive fashion but even despite having those instructions on hand they were still confused and according to people child which is an illinois supreme court case when a jury is confused as to the explicit question of law when you're confused as to specific elements even despite having these readily understandable instructions they still are entitled to an answer by the