ninety ninety seven recognized that a defendant is in aisle to an instruction on his theory of the case if there is some foundation for the instruction in the evidence and these princip firearm in certain circumstances in mr willis's case the state argued that he knowingly or intentionally discharged a firearm there into a building in new or reasonably should have known to be  mr willis's entire his face to the charge of aggravated discharge residue upon the concepts of recklessness and reckless discharge of the firearm or over substantial evidence mental state of knowledge well mr willis do reckless leave rather than knowing your intention was a proper question for the jury in this case and the trial  the people versus the illinois supreme court decision from two thousand and four states that it was respect to felony murder the specific felony murder statute does not specify state well then its it's very difficult answer their question without conflating the separate issues between the fact that he was actually try on a charge of aggravated discharge as well as a charge of felony murder what i will say is this people versus davis was a very fast specific case the illinois supreme court is very careful in limiting the language of davis to fasten their case and i understand that reckless mental state offenses could not be applicable in that particular case but it was because is because you can't get to felony murder and injury was the jury in this case your honour's was specifically instructed you suggesting here is that and why if suggested in my brief is that there is reasonable and logical  would allow distinguishing the fast this case from the facts in davis that would still hold true today this is basic only i would like to refer to quoted was that as charged in this case under the language of this indictment we cannot find a lesser included offense for felony murder that's my point distinction that you're here to be drawing the basis that is this for the supreme court say in this case there is no mental state applicable to felony murder i don't think i think the court wasn't part of the safety of that individual that suggests to me did the legislature didn't mean by the way the endangered individual is dead as a result of the shooting seems to me that's rather more most certainly does allow for let's not all state and the church had a determining whether that offense was committed before they reach the question of whether felony braniff the reason we don't have a case law on this point is maybe the otherwise certain clothes that arguably might be made would be felonies themselves so there would be no point in reaching th the whole idea of a certain clue to defense is that the public offense doesn't food because after all the cop when he shot the guy he was forget about a lesser included it was a justified shooting there was no crime with a cop shooting him in all the reason we know why is that the state submitted instructions on accountability do you think it does well the thing that struck me about that is that it is matter that the jury was providing billy instruction we don't know whether they invented mr willis based on his and his actual acts or based upon accountability for the acts of aaron miller it is it is a greater  the entire encounter the entire incident if you accept the defendant's version of what would raise the question  reckless yes rather than knowing or anything to to do anything with regard to that house that was on north  basically collins emphasized that it is absurd to conclude that there is no highly in danger man when shots are fired refutes his entire argument that by leaving dangerman doesn't apply to this specific specific scenario for aggravated this charge it doesn't matter whether you will try a strike it matters because the statute specifies that it has to be a forcible felony and it actually list certain forcible felonies and it says or other forcible felony i'm not aware of any case that has