worn off by midnight or so and one of the problems here is that we don't know the exact time of death you know which is found dead but there was never any findings exactly when she died and so it's difficult answer in the reply brief that i think got off track from what i was trying argument to make that clear which is that in causation what we have are two i mean and this is what i think counsel just got away from we have two very i well actually one is i p i criminal four point two four but two different issues which this defense tender and they both have very big problems speak in terms of proximate cause that's simply not the term so to define the term the term president causing quotation marks need such and such without another mission which would then have to link it towards how that fits into the elements and the issues facing the jurors this is confusing moreover the fact that in that case defense number four it says means any cause which in the natural or probable sequence where the wording that presumably only confuse and then when we get to defense number five this is the one i really wanted to address not only do we start with again with proximate cause which has no place in the meaning of what the jurors understand it's the issues to be defense number five was that properly denied by the trial court and then put i think two things that are actually getting in there for an instruction first off we have the confusion again from proximate cause we that she did he didn't die from taking this before i guess at the end of the question that's not the inquiry that would be a proper and inaccurate statement off and i went to the fact that in this defense number five it says approximate has the potential to be put in other things nobody people often do especially people who are taking illegal drugs and it doesn't even have to be more he could be anything else but they also know they find in their victim is being you know i mean they don't know who it is  looking at a narrative castro and all of her medical conditions and all of what she did didn't do and whether the defendant knew about it in any case they should be looking at  that i believe the word with something like that the defendant contemplated or should have contemplated this and that raises it to an element of the offense and makes it narrower than what it really is that's not what they need to find the jurors still need to know whether or not this particular defendant knew anything about what was in or out what she might have taken anything of that sort but now go step further and say that should this point to the group for any reason to say well he didn't know these things will then i'm going to point out as i did in my  from the start and he knew that she had congestive heart failure he knew she had obesity he knew she had hypertension he did she was taking other medications he knew that she had more thing in the house and they tried to convince him to take it he s the police officer at the second statement oh you're going to find when you do the our top see that she took morphine he also said later when he tried to retract that somewhat at trial she may have taken more things so he knew all that was a possibility so even under the is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different answers to that he needs something x such as they were in cahoots and we don't have a full stacks here includes what's really the distinguishing and in fact calls for a different result we have what the i p i has suggested delivery to be something that has a commonly understood meaning and i think for most people if you're in a house with your significant other passing a plate back and forth and come back to this you know know where they say we're going to do this judge you know you're actually thinking that could it come down to just giving just handing but obviously that isn't enough so there we directed at a few of those things but the defendant then said i paid one hundred ten dollars i got a good deal because they didn't know i was familiar i brought it home and i shared equally he said all of those which they would have found him guilty even using the wrong thing and use the wrong definition because had they done so they would have had here somehow this is some statement at some point she handed it to him there's no evidence of that they could not determine that d men and what delivery men and without knowing back they were even worse off is it shouldn't they would have been if they had been given the instructions and i think you're a general point i would say that you know this is not a case where giving these instructions really would have confused the jury and put them in a worse position to make their factual