acute awareness hypoglycemic attack then there is no doubt he lacked conscious awareness of what he was doing this day i don't think even him to get to that point i want to get before her but his behavior before how can he be out there driving when he no see in his mind that he has this issue and this issue has already occurred once and that here and at least two times earlier which automatically puts him and he didn't give me a number he didn't tell me what numbers bring you in or out of it what this individual's wral of those normal numbers work what  scase they they were really they just blow in defense he did ok but he really didn't bring out a lot of good question so with that in mind go  this or this you know what i'm saying even his own mission say he will sign no just what he said i'm going to eat i disagree i mean when he says i'm going to eat more they all moan is an insulin that you take in the amount of food that you eat and particularly for a type one diabetic this is something that we do with all of the time and so it's not unusual for diabetics particularly type one diabetics to have you know isolated episodes of low blood sugar and that's precisely what peter rabbit was talking about when he said he had had incidents in the past where his pleasure got well he corrected it and that's absolutely normal for diabetics and estate here right where you say that that was the state's burden to prove this it seems to me that the facts of the case the evidence showed recklessness and switch the burden for the defense to show give the these seas of his sids and it did and if anything that goes to the states failure to prove recklessness and a reasonable doubt i mean the state has to prove that there's some notice something that gives a notice that it's unsafe for him to and then he has to make a decision now again going back the record shows this gentleman's had prior attacks we don't know what kind that's the record is unclear but we do know he had an attack prior in that year so here you've got a fence that previously occurred the do put him i'm no would say if he's going to take a job that requires try but we're not talking about a case here where he's let's say he's in his garage and he's working at his car and then he decides he's going to get in the car and before he decides to get in the carriage goes into an unawareness hypoglycemic event gets in the carriage starts driving that that's not the situation that we have here yet that's exactly he said that he didn't recall leaving work that day the next thing he remembers he's waking up in the in the ambulance i mean there's absolutely no evidence that he knew before he got into the car that his blood sugar was low and that would be unsafe for him to drive so you're saying the the lack of awareness here anticipated him getting  putting pepsi's in your car and that's his testimony and that again unrefuted and if the state is going to charge him with recklessness it should be the state's burden to prove very specific evidence of recklessness because otherwise you're you know towing a large group of people with a very common medical condition that you know they shouldn't drive or you're giving them you know i don't mean this churlishly you're potentially giving a class of people license to just go out and drive whenever coming back would what he's just explained is where i say the judges entitle to ask questions to clarify what the expert cers he hedged i'm drawing the line again between where and what levels of blood would give x or y he had just done what a person should have to do to bring his sugar level again at the hospital i mean that's the evidence that we have to go on here and to the extent that and that leads into my second issue to the extent that there were gaps in the state's evidence that only points up the problem the state failed to  posed by judge chambers he was somewhat frustrated by the answers that were given the stocker couldn't answer something yes or no he went on to give explanations to what argument th word the effort was being made to clarify what type of simple and complex tasks that could be done it could be performed by a person who was suffering from this on a attack and that's what he was endeavoring to do you know what they used to say about experts and probably still do is whose food i eat his song all sang and that's what you had here you had somebody who was singing a song who was hired by the defense it's all experts are hired by i want to cite or the other judge simply was trying to clarify what he was saying but i think what happened here the problem is that the judge did more than seek to clarify i role of a prosecutor which is lately proper and that only did he seek to clarify that i think and he was really in gauging in some unnecessary sarcasm i'm asking if you know what happened if he's having an acute problem that the judge did something wrong in that regard yes i mean i think the defendant has you know both parties in fact had a due process rights or open minded impartial try a are a fact and when the judge takes on the role of a prosecutor in frost no further with the way the expert arrived going through allegedly it is you say notice i'm saying that the dr hedge from the very start he started with the absolute finish that he has x club i seen him and then he worked backwards he didn't ever address when an individual is or is not to do to stay out of harm's way and protect other people on the street he didn't say what he should do he gave the general over all examples of what happens but he didn't specify here in what what why was this guy right or wrong when did he cross the line i disagree i mean the judge testified that based on his medical history you know pirro had you know episode like all diabetics do and so based on that history there was no reason for him not to be driving and you know he tests he also tested that looking at his medical reports petero you know took a test two different tests in the prior year to test your long term control of your diabetes and those tests showed that he had good control so did i disagree that you know if i didn't explain the reasoning for his opinion i think he was very clear in going through his medical reports and showing that think the court could have looked at the prior incidents where the defendant came back remember certain aspects of what happened in some of those prior attacks and use there is a basis in the court's mind that he had no that this could happen an argument would be that you know a rational trier of fact did not conclude that that is reckless it's criminal recklessness for him to be doing so you're making a special new required to show that it was criminally reckless for him to be driving a car again one other thing i'd like to point out is that you know while it's testified that he could not remember what happened when he left work the that peter rollo had good long term control over his diabetes and that you cannot put him on notice that it's unsafe for him to be driving and on the day of if he's regulating his physical activity is insulin and his food  clarity i think first of all most importantly to remember here is that driving is a privilege it's not a right and in this case mr route the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was reckless undertaking to drive that day but counsel did not mention in his argument is a very important fact that was relied upon by the trial court and its finding was that the defendant had worked state day only the second day of a new job in construction which entailed him exerting strenuous physical labor in doing that job and he testified himself that he knew that any type of physical activity whether and i want to quote him it was later on he testified that those were not frequent where he could not remember anything that had occurred they were not normal but they ended not occur more than twice per year he had already suffered one of those attacks in that same it to whether it's narcolepsy right or you know there's case of sleep apnea this type previous case from which any would appear to be but i think when you look at the facts that this defendant knew something was different that day he didn't know how this court heard and this court is a rational trier of fact decided that the evidence in this case did prove recklessness and when you look at the facts and circumstances of this case they show that you know he ok he testified he tested his working that new job that day that's why he was doing these things he was tinkering with his medication and with his food intake but at present enough and again he was reckless in driving it hate not knowing what could happen and knowing that these things had happened to him hypoglycemic attack the court found that he had an acute hyperglycemia reaction and i think when you look at the other evidence in this case that showed that the defendant was functioning and again  just as when you brought up the point about the taking the taser wires out and jumping the fence in the court was interested in needed to determine regarding issue two rather  you know these were simple or complex tasks starting a car he was able to get his keys out turn on the ignition start his car put it into drive where there were those tests that could be done by somebody who was having a quote unquote unawareness attack and in this case the trial court did not find that it was one such unawareness attack and again regarding issue to read first maintain a position that the defendant wa on with respect to the court's questions in seeking to determine the truth in this case and how to weigh all of the evidence that it hurt if you have no other question we would rest on you know stand on our brief and ask that you were on the there's no evidence in the record that probably had never performed physical activity never asserted himself he never engaged in this time but the type of business so the fact that it was his second day on the job is simply beside the point  credible he gave reasons for his testimony i disagree that he didn't take you take the judge through the steps you know certainly in the judge's questioning and want through and say you know from start to finish starting the car a simple task driving down the first pledge sugar has dropped and so he can't correct it and so it's a you know very particular type of hypoglycemia of which there is absolutely no evidence that he ever suffered anything in the in looking at again some of the other case law dealing with you know driving your medical conditions that occur while driving the defendant always had noticed this very specific notice that showed him that it was dangerous for him to dry out here absolutely no rational trier of fact can pull anything from the record other than the fact that he's had opened sugar in the past nothing specific in the record show that it would be unsafe for him to drive and where there is no specific evidence in the record the state simply failed to meet its burden of proof here and so no rational trier of fact could conclude that he was reckless in this case