think it's the trial court agreed to defense counsel's request that the jury be instructed on second degree murder but rejected counsel's request that the jury be instructed on involuntary manslaughter the second issue is that mr hayes should receive a new trial because the instructions for second degree murder were subverted by the prosecutor during its closing argument we're told the jury that it should not find for second degree murder because second degree murder would only be to a slap on the wrist if they might as well said mr hayes freak what i'm wrong and that it would be an injustice to the family of the first a defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense when there is some evidence from which the jury could find that lesser offense even if that evidence is very slight here together over a knife which the deceit and ted introduced into their argument struggle over the knife and bus that that mr hayes was disregarding a substantial risk and thus acting recklessly rather than disregarding the practical certainty arm but this is this is evidence but there was also the evidence that it had gone in during the struggle in these conflicts and the evidence should have been resolved by trying to affect the jury hear hear the  judge took that away from from the jury it's opportunity to determine whether mr hayes was only disregarding a substantial risk and bus guilty of involuntary manslaughter as to involuntary manslaughter this court should storing them for a new trial in this case because the prosecution undermined the second degree murder instruction that was given here when it's a jury that  the ruling dejection and at that point the prosecutor continued on saying that the second degree murder conviction would be an injustice to the family of the dissident and small steps that this type of argument she had bruising on her lips she had hemorrhaging in her eye the defendant argues that she should been entitled to it involuntary manslaughter instruction because of the comment the isolated comment he made to the police where he says that a call comes in with a knife for struggling over the knife they fall back on to the couch and the knife goes in to her neck this is not evidence of recklessness if anything this is evidence of an accidental killing or at best a justifiable killing the illinois supreme court case which is actually saying defendants brief the illinois supreme quite explain that evidence of the victim coming out the defendant with a gun a struggle in suing over the gun and the gun going off was not evidence of recklessness in that case if anything it was evidence of a justifiable murder and in the same sense here a defendant says that the victim is coming at him this is not evidence of recklessness however even if this was evidence of something it's not slight evidence rising to the level of an instruction because the physical evidence completely refutes any possibility that the defendant acted recklessly in this case we have the autopsy photographs we have the medical examiner testimony there's no possible way that the defendant caused the victim's death and he did so by performing those acts recklessly we know she was stabbed in the juggler vein the carotid artery this was an intentional court did not abuse its discretion in denying instruction on involuntary manslaughter moving on to the second issue a prosecutor's comment does not amount to reversible error unless the defendant can so show that he was so substantially prejudiced by that comment so should the con it may have contributed to his conviction the prosecutor's comment in this case absolutely did not contribute to the defendant's conviction because there was no evidence of second degree murder in this case second degree murder acquire a space of provocation which is what the jury was instructed on in this case it requires a mutual combat upon equal terms or two parties enter equally and where that defendant attack is proportionate to the to the victim's provocation and the crime is murder when the attack is out of proportion to the provocation in this case there was no question for the jury or any defendant treated her body like trash he dumped her in the garbage can he left her there for a week living in this house full of blood and tell the police came over to his house he told multiple multiple lies the police this is not the type of where the defendant was i q they were the defendant was in a heat of passion this is not second degree and i would submit that the prosecutor in this case did not believe only comment on sentencing appears that he was doing on the record was he was trying to convey the fact that there was absolutely no evidence in this case of second degree murder and so he argued that this is either if you're going to believe none of the witnesses or not guilty or it's a first degree murder case and in addition i'd like to point out that the defendant doesn't argue in his brief about the the comment made after a slap on the wrist about the injustice and that is proper comma and it's considered to be a proper comment in this case and the trial court in this case did overrule the objection but the trial court was in a better position to weigh the level of impropriety highly of such a comment in the trial court did not find the comment to be especially prejudicial to the defendant the trial court instructed the jury that this was simply argument and the jury was instructed that closing arguments are not evidence and that number of viewing the prosecutor's comment we must look at the argument as a whole and in this case it was an isolated portion of an isolated comment of a thirty page rebuttal argument and the prosecutor is coming here because of the overwhelming evidence in this case and had to incite wounds on her forearm she had another incisive one on the outside of her hand she had an additional bruises on her hand and that was the extent of her severe injuries as well as the fact that proposition that generally an involuntary manslaughter instruction is not warranted where the victim's multiple wounds and defenses list demonstrate that the defendant did not act recklessly and that is exactly what we have in this case and that is why the trial  properly denied the instruction as well as the fact that the defendant changed his story multiple times and this was not his final confession confession and the defendant did not testify there was no evidence of recklessness