standing naked with his hands out a fault ten feet away from the rifle in the corner of the bedroom with a large bag and a plastic filing cabinet obstructing his path for the gun mr norwood had already moved as far away from the gun as the room would allow by that placing it well out of his arms reach this court for these reasons should reverse his arm violence  interesting thing about that case is it was decided on public policy grounds the grounds that the supreme court says the army violet it's statues and that's up whole that's to make these dangerous situations these police citizen encounters where there's a felony being committed so to deescalate the situations to deter them from happening at all and to to attempt to diffuse them when they do happen they fixate was at that moment when when mr smith was holding the gun regardless of whether the police were inside or outside of the building at that point he could have opened fire on them and so there is there is a danger if there is danger in that situation time russ but also if we look back before he opened that case he was sitting in the car where the guns were and so there was this this issue of time as of the moment or us as for the us by the time of smith the court said no it's it's at the moment of support this this lengthy set of assertions that the state makes about where the room mr norwood is located we don't know what happens after his fiance gets up we don't even know what time is that she got  defining immediate access as within arm's reach you know the missions of the we know the only measurement we have that's not a yes i think one of police officers makes a gas that's attend my time but the measurement we have in the record entrance or the entry into the residence by the officers would you agree i would agree that there's language in people versus congdon and people versus this i think it's people versus smith that both use the phrase whether the officers enter something something that to that extent i'm not sure what the difference is between creating a sort of magical threshold of the front of the house versus well it's not much use same for protection  have access to bill but in the corner of the room makes himself closer to the weapons when he lays down and then in his view apparently his view to it was in a place where he could get to it if he needed addiction so i think there's is coming closer to the to the gun i would are certainly far different in wrapping our windows were you know you know obviously it would be better from a legal sense if he was able to do that in this case it would have been worse for him if he was midway through the need to be standing next to the open closet next to the closet and i think that that line helps guide the houses for for the framers of how close you need to be within arm's reach and so it's not clear from the record have how close he was either before on the state's theory or after when he lies down i think that's our violence and it's because he's acted to deescalate the situation he's done everything under the rubric of people yeah a lot of cocaine in here amount of marijuana in the house so there's no at least nothing i saw the records there's nothing in the record shows control the canvas and the poking were in bed that is  citation i'm remembering the statement of facts right mean case and the court went on to say if the closet door was open and the defendant was standing right by that's how close you have to be or that's the proximity you know the guy could be standing on the wrong side of the laws of the world again and there it is if they were trying to draw a bright line and they didn't need to reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution taking all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution but the defendant's suggested standard for what constitutes otherwise armed under the armed violence statute is that the defendant has to have at the moment of arrest within arm's reach the weapon and that is not seem to be supported by the case off to plead the case that he cites people the smith which is decided on public policy grounds but is totally distinguishable on the facts because in that case the gun was dropped out of the window before the police even entered the building and here the defendant keeps a rifle large weapon within reach of where he sleeps in bed as protection against break ins and this is the situation in which there is the lock of a very high danger for violence in a police raid search warrant enter the clothes through the closed bedroom door to get through the house and enter in the bedroom and rely on eyeing relying only on the moment when the naked defendant is standing at the foot of the bad face to face police officer and measuring the distance to the rifle in the corner is is too narrow to protect against the the danger that the legislature wants to to do is to keep arm felons from having access immediate access to weapons in these it was behind the plastic filing cabinet but still was able to be seen over a bad piece of furnishing in the corner on the same side that the defendant slaps now i understand that the fiance testified differently but she was bed is the rifle and of course that also makes sense in freshly because he kept the rifle there for self protection for protection of home against break ins so i do what he wants to be closest to that if there was a sudden break in so the situation here is the obstruction the question whether it's large stuffed heart even if it was there which the state's evidence shows it should not have been there be critically because that object had other items on top of it and the boston to defend his fiance was cross examined about the the fact about there was other objects on top of that filing cabinet and said of this large stuff parts of her testimony could be rejected on credibility ground within proximity of the defendant as well as the weapon i'm not sure that's a required element of the state has to prove so as long as he is in fact committing a felony so i measure if how that applies in non contraband cases but essentially in this situation i think it made any difference and that's why the state didn't have a burden of proving exactly where in the house the contrabands look it seems odd that the records does not reflect controlled substance might be important i don't believe that list the location of the controlled substance of the marijuana in that case that mattered because i think the point of pointing it out was that the bag or wanna being on top of a of a gun that was wrapped in a rag inside a clothes like and for that reason although i might be wrong i think the location might be important but the location of controlled substances well another purpose the legislature could have is that someone who is  that because i think it's worth i understand your honor and i'm not sure there's a case out there that explains directly when we're together whether that's an important element with respect to the  of the view also against existence of major obstructions makes a lot harder for a weapon on the other side of major obstructions like seat of vehicle they were in the trunk of the car to be immediately is sort of like the best he could standard it's not supported by the law and it's not a good public policy for this court to adopt either for a defendant who intentionally keeps a firearm by his his badge in order to protect his home from break in when he's the felon and the king case again the defendant is out it door and the guns in the bedroom very far apart here if they were in the same room and that the nail on case began the defendant was outside house in a line in the gun was in the closet the only rational explanation is that this heart was there but in the interests of preserving santa than over here or in the future facts i don't think this one fact swings the case and so if if you're honest believe that that is in fact disputed two story house with pigs with the top story just where the bedroom is that's where the guy is in his right beside gun but the drugs are in the base