gain information even though the state's star witness disputed that this is a liberal question and the state's theory defies common sense the only reasonable inference understood and right after the offense he told officers that the whole rich accused him of being a snitch it was intuitively understood by the prosecutor to rain and we call the statement an accusation fired at the time the questions were asked the shots fired by the defendant to and the victim that would be the threat and that he had to wrestle the gun away from him in order to leave and this fired the shot and let's just think about this in terms of what over reasonable person would think in this situation all right he knew that it is quite the  can not be to gain information how do we know there's nothing in the record that tells us that the fall off over the nelson saying that was not a request for information we noticed because common sense says that unless you have a death wish you're not going to the victim what cocaine earlier in the day right and then he's can't come back for a second or two right and i'm sure you're familiar with undercover operations multiple small purchases are very common and oftentimes multiple purchases in small amounts from the same individual on the same day can give rise to suspicion driver and asked him this basically the same question and you think that he wanted to know before he pulled the trigger right whether so that for the rest of us yes the same question but my point is that that guy for putting a gun in someone's mouth you make up your mind that that guy is a snitch it was either them or it was you are you disputing that that was not in there to be intimidation under the law if the question is is he trying to find out if he's a snitch no agree that a reasonable juror juror who concluded there was an act of intimidation under the charge of this offense intimidating actis to gain information what was he shooting for what was the purpose of shooting as i said the shooting is to say do not snitch on me and you better not snitch on me if they had been charged with being different situation but it defies common sense that the testimony was that mr nelson took it as if you understood it as a question not a directive asked directly asked in a direct manner is this a question correct by the prosecutor he said yes the question when asked  information but here's a this is not there's no nothing to conflicting to determine and i agree that nelson is saying that the state to not put their case is not determined but off what really supports this is that ensures we the state's theory does not make sense well because no one would say yes to this question and james would know that before you ask well but the defendant could have if we know he was intoxicated he could have on reasonabl thought that he could get nelson to answer this question especially if he scared him and threatened him with the gun so that's possible it's not reasonable to believe that someone's back none recently unless rhetorical questions i don't know maybe he's asking a question to which someone else might not think they could get an answer but because of the state of is going to happen ten times square in two hours where's the box that information is useful there is no reason why james cares about his answer he does not need to satisfy his own conscious there's not due process here it's not a court of law or he's to come before a comedian convinced him that he is a snitch heat at this point he's made up his mind he believes the guy's a snitch and he believes it because he came and so drugs to him two hours earlier he's not going to believe anything he says based on that point he wants to send him a message don't snitch on had that been charged might be a different matter but it defies common sense is nelson that sane directly this was not a request for an for information completely undermining how to get that type of clear explicit testimony in the trial but it also defies common sense and but that i mean your your arguments you know just kind of take your death to a trial court argument when there are real issues here the real issue for the whole case is i mean if the three of us were in this case individual is trial court judges as and it's this course duty to up hold only reasonable verdicts the jury system is a great system it is not infallible system on such a minor point such as this easily be lost in a jury trial especially when the trial counsel then not make the argument because they went with a different peer so it allows the state to expand on something that's not dispute would not be here this is just not reasonable it's not reasonable to expect anybody to say yes to that question unless you want to be hurt and james would know that it's there for what it is now saying shot it is strong evidence of what's in his mind how's that people will testify about others intent that's how we find out what that's what determine intent and intent here unless you have an admission or circumstances sometimes it's it's our founding missions like you sell confessions or confessions here i'm not saying it's you know defended if proof i'm saying that it's extremely strong defendant's explanation may be one possible perspective on the other evidence but the people presented a different perspective we presented evidence that the defendant one had and intended to gain information from the case and also believe that is the determination for the jury to make whether the defendant intended to gain information when he asked a friend of a question and in this case he agreed with the state's perspective and back should carry the day now i know the court has two million supports the state's version of the events and through the defendant's words and actions i think it's clear that he was seeking information and i think the most compelling the strongest evidence on that point is his own words when he asked the victim are you tricking reading me out are you working with the police could it be rhetorical maybe that's one that's one perspective why didn't the state and defense counsel argue this that it would have been a much better charge if threatening him for information and we're not shying away from that fact we can see the victim did testify that he didn't think the defendant was seeking information but as your honour's noted there is conflicting testimony on this point and  that it was a question in in addition to understanding the defendant asking a question the victim testified that he felt threatened for his life and that's a page eight o six now when you couple those two portions of his testimony together it is absolutely reasonable to infer that that make them thought that the defendant was threatening him because he wanted an answer to that question that is certainly a reasonable inference i'm from the evidence i also talked to my grief about the actual firing of the shots i mean i just want to reiterate that the defendant was two to three feet away from the victim when he pointed her about that this was point blank range and from such a short distance if he defended intended to hughes or retaliate against the victim for being a snitch he could have chosen his time he could have caused severe bodily harm he could have killed him if he wanted to but he chose a non lethal lethal park he pointed the gun foreground and he fired two shots into the floor and i think a reasonable mind could infer that the defendant intentionally mess use to to him but that's certainly not sure if i raise a couple of possibilities in my brief maybe the defendant wanted to know who he was working for are you working for this department and agency are you working for another drug dealer and maybe sniffing for and perhaps use that information to evade the authorities  question because believe it or not sometimes criminals act irrationally and they are not thinking reasonably and so we can't read too much in the jury makes a determination based upon the evidence that's presented to them both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence certainly mr nelson's take on it is relevant but also the trial court heard and saw the testimony of the trial court a true producer as well and he's although he's not the fact finder the trial court's observations are important to this court ok you said that because the criminal sometimes act irrationally everyone is entitled to a reasonable doubt standard right unless there is evidence the fact that he's a resident criminal does not allow the fact finder then infer although he's on reasonable inferences because of he's a criminal and sometime for most actor rationally so therefore he's not entitled to the reasonable doubt standard i think we get into some problems where we we start thinking that he is acting irrationally just based on he's a criminal and there's nothing really to support it and actually you know i two or three reasons why he would be interested in the information how do you respond to those in the states to say that i don't think those make much sense for several reasons one more  only person who testified about your cation you said it was not a request for information we need to up hold the beyond reasonable doubt standard it does not go up the wind window when you're on appeal what is a question but for requests for information it's not a request the question is not a request for information a rhetorical question is not and i know we're focusing on that he happened to say it was a question but it was  stated in response to the the state's attorney realizing did not prove this case and he said this was a question correct and he said yes to that when asked to clarify what he really understood in an open ended