away finding an object planned deformed object in the evening and then at trial mr james and officer barrows speculation are guessing that it will look like a twenty two  here that satisfies this element aggravated fire the state never recovered any weapon or ammunition that they could link to the object they recovered in the kenyan vent or to mr even if we assume that a firearm was discharged into the house there was not sufficient reliable evidence that it was mr hilliard who personally discharged fire at the state presented surveillance video from a gas station down the road from this house question still room versus conviction or man for a new trial because of all the errors associated with evidence presented first there's the lay witnesses opinion testimony of that this was a twenty two caliber bullet and then i briefly mentioned before our argument talks several seven zero one and seven o two in the differences here these witnesses  firearm into this house and that they didn't have to have the gun but we know mr heller had some paraphernalia his house they found empty box no date no connection to this offense no connection to the object recovered but allowed the state to make that inference in that argument and it went without being  and addition to the problems with that have it and the second piece of evidence is the gas station surveillance video your honour's i attached three slides that the state use at the trial i wouldn't know the significance of that leads into an argument to work to happen zoller explanation violates the courts rule of establishing people the psychs that if a video comes in a substantive or home there was over thirty pages admitted as exhibit and they don't talk about sheree and lindsey james they don't talk about guns they don't talk about trying to intimidate or scare  his former girlfriend christie and they talk about their sexual and romantic relationship they talk about his concerns about her and her son about his following of her taking pictures of her in essence know this thirty pages of documents that make mr heller look like a bad person can only go for it was motive that can only show his connection otherwise without this they can explain why mr heller rico shoot into this house and eleven o'clock eleven thirty at night or even how he found that house because there's no other relationship or evidence that would connect them together in addition to these circumstantial evidence and all the problems an heiress associated there with it we have the additional air an argument for  counsel is not evidence of guilt it's can't the substance of the used to show their guilt and this jury saw that heard that and then was never given any guidance on what to do with that piece and that's powerful evidence that they should never have seen and it compounds this other weak circumstantial evidence and the errors associate with each piece of it so alternatively in this court finds the state these over abundance thirty some pages with all these references to remanded relationship with someone who's not even that they've been admitted but no guidance to the jury on why we've been admitted except to show he's a bad person we have his requests for counsel and we have to lay witnesses given an opinion that this is a bullet and the state arguing that based on that testimony and the things found in his house we know he fired twenty two into that house discharge that entered her house and while that he had no direct personal connection and the fact that there is something that he put in this calendar entry which for that day which was the license plate true that's what she said but then she also backtracked from that when she then said it could have been last and then the other evidence that comes in substance substantively that she said she told the police that it was almost right after now in this court review powerful evidence that that's what he actually believed whether he might have been ill the secret might refuse looking in the correct direction that's not something this court has to accept in repute in the light most favorable to prosecution so in the important point though is that the the house video given the fact that there it is the evidence of cars very similar to the defendant with the black rims and the color and the jury can look at this this picture when the car does the u turn and comes back to the hudson by actually through the lot the second time the purse time it was in the background is much harder to see another's no picture of the driver a visible nurse no license plate minutes later that if you have a video and a camera facing on that road and she passes by that road sometime during the time period that that cameras filming there is no just the money that she passed there i think that car in the video is her passing by i understand your honor your your point is that she never identified her car in the video that much is true but she provided testimony as to her path to travel the video displays that particular wrote she if she didn't say that that was her car the fact the combination of circumstantial evidence the fact that he left oh it's right after her he's on the video with cars consistent with him seconds behind on that same road and that tail lights end up causing unhesitating at the end of her driveway after she drives into her garage that her husband notices and then there's this car that loops the browns makes the u turn comes back to the hot spot and then about a half hour the testimony of boys that this was in appearance as a lead bullet consistent with not scientifically established beyond a reasonable doubt but that's not necessarily elements to be proved by scientific evidence evidence on which would send a service where the shooter would have been when the guns just or anything at all on their right and i understand your question as being directed towards the state attempt to or a show where the shooter would appear at the used a pencil to establish right actually through the window and the fact that people wits end up inside the house and there hole in the window makes a reasonable inference that the shooter with outside the house firing into the house right on south or outside the house a quarter of a mile away one hundred yards in somebody else's yard on the street i believe there is nothing in him and the victim the connection is created by his belief if she's engaging in prostitution with men his insistence that police were doing nothing about it and he wanted it stopped and of course this was his method eventually after watching her pain of the previous day police interview insisted that he went to her coffee just at steak and shake some persons and then home and no where else but yet the strong evidence showing that he was in fact hucks around ten twenty eight ten twenty five passing that area much much closer to the and look at the video and look at the street and understand where that is and explain that for the jury which is not allowed to go to the scene of the of crimes or scene of events like this type of situation they can to see for themselves that's make sure driving this is going south that's something that it will leave when the should be allowed to provide that information which is very helpful to them so that part of the evidence was in fact admissible and believe witness will does not bar that kind of opinion testimony and with respect to the argument that there was no scientific testing with respect to the caliber of the bullet and the fence and the witness it's good if he's not an expert but he doesn't have to have scientific or technical expertise to say that given the relative size of the fire boy it looked like a twenty two that is the limited extent that opinion and so therefore he didn't need the expertise to say it wasn't fact twenty two because he never testified it wasn't back to twenty two and when the prosecutor then argues so inconsistent or so unreasonable and satisfactory as to constitute a reasonable doubt of guilt and the fact that the defendant has a defense saying that i did not go anywhere but staying in shape that night and that i gave the gun to somebody else all those statements before yours i understand that the jury can disbelieve that the jury does not have to accept that this court does not have to accept that as true when reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution the fact that there is contradictory evidence does not mean the defend receive an outright requirement and so with respect to motive motive was very crucial here because that provides an explanation for what was really sort of unexplicable by this man would follow somebody and shoot through a window and of his belief that she was engaging in prostitution and how personally important that's what's to him because he's not just a concerned citizen thinking there's prostitution happening in this neighborhood or a prostitute lives down the street this is somebody who is personally sexually romantically involved with and this is why harmless and so here because it's not emphasized it's not highlighted in any way and there in the in this very brief mention is something that after the fact parties noticed that this was in fact something that was that the jury heard even if there weren't any problems with this evidence even if the surveillance videos privately admitted and and the amount of evidence and the lay witnesses we still do not have enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that