this morning i would like to focus on the trial court's denial of mr peters and right to suffer presentation as well as how the jury instructions in this case not accurately state the law and if time permits i'll also discuss the issue of the jury honor's in this case mr peterson was denied us right to suffer presentation on the erroneous basis that the trial court did not believe he was competent to represent himself in a capital case our courts of recognize that the right to suffer a presentation as a basic and equivocal you know the recent case of another division of this court people versus gray that this court granted we have to cite addresses that you know exactly in that case the defendant was asking the court to allow them to make cross a filings along with pertaining for you address that issue well i think the very first you know exchange about this pro se issue you know six months before the trial he did bring it up as i want to fire my attorneys the court said well you know your only alternative here then is to go press say you don't want to do that you know the defendant i mean he he raised the issue when he realized that that was his only alternative and i suppose that the court made it clear to him with six months out court date that here are your two options but in the subsequent court dates the defendant came in and said i want to go pro  so to trial with these lawyers i want to represent myself you know there was a back and forth about you know whether he was capable of representing himself how good of a job his lawyers were doing and he said i want to represent myself and i say tonight two weeks later on january twenty offenses and robbery with a firearm or dangerous weapon other than a firearm here the state charged him with a robbery well carrying a dangerous weapon to wit fire those state sits on appeal obviously they were charging a fire time that we hear this defendant make any representation whatsoever that he's unhappy with his counsel and at that point in that september two thousand and nine days he states i would like you attorney when judge hindsight's i'm not going to give you another your choices are you can hire private counsel and go pro se he says i'd rather have another child but i'll go per se if i have to and that's a common refrain throughout the rest of the court dates it's also important to note that from that september two thousand  a request that we see in some of the other cases where courts have found that i defendant did make requests i wanted to charge my attorneys and i want to represent myself per se as just francis pointing out that there was always looks conditional sort of discussion significant in that you know had made an unmistakable demand orly then we were probably wouldn't be here on this issue i mean i think what we need to look at is there's a slew of ambiguity is not an all time so some other only only other alternative you know is to represent myself something i don't want to do something that i'm forced to do because i don't have an option because the court has not given me an option so that the court is telling him you know why you're not going get another turn on this and he's saying i think what it seems to be and reading this together i mean i don't think that we can take any one court date and put it in a vacuum in the sense and make the decision rea have said i don't want to do this but i'm going to do this and he never does that here and i think the problem with this type of case in general is that when we are looking at them on appeal the reason why courts before us have said as far as trying to explain to him the importance of what he was about to undertake and i think a lot of that back and forth with the court and the defendant was trying to impress upon him how difficult this would be to go  counsel are actually brought upon himself when he gives councils all three that opportunity to act like i mean this goes on to pages and pages and transcripts to discuss what they've done with him and what you know different things they perhaps should have done in that regard it becomes clear to judge hines that you know this this is on the variable eve this is the month before his trial and that this is done because now he's facing capital murder case and he wants to court here is faced with a defendant who's saying over and over and over again through four court dates and five month period of time right before trial i don't like my attorneys they think i'm to be found guilty i want to go to trial and the reason the judge trying to realize there more is it because he filed a motion better than making the oral the last i'm not saying that what i'm saying is that his request was pretty clear when he filed the motion and that in and of itself is not something that a conditional i might want to nother attorney go ahead and f week was well was no no i'm not specifically on september the september date was the first day that we talked about it the defendant says i don't like my attorneys that want anyone i don't want to represent myself but i well january his reasons why one of the representatives i don't believe he asked that question specifically why do you specifically want to represent yourself i think it's more it's more in the vein of what's the problem  relating back and forth between i don't want to represent him but i don't want to ever say what i well or i want to represent myself if you don't give me another chance and i think what's important to take away is that that this defendant is never stated to the court anything that is specifically wrong with his attorneys other than he just doesn't like them and the judge goes through this age or pages of different to happen whether or not it be a new attorney which he's accepted with accepting of or going pro se he doesn't even know he just knows that he doesn't like these attorneys he doesn't think they believe in him and he doesn't  which at the time we charged it there was no objection to counsel had four years to indict and tried to object to the language that was in the armed robbery indictment they didn't object what you're talking about is a defendant who is well apprised of the charges against him and that's what washington state washington state is basically telling us that during the time that this was charged there's a whole area of law that was instruction is not objected to nor is the instruction offered by opposing counsel then there is a waiver component and then we discuss in a plane air not harm us air and in that regard  definition so when we talk about whether or not the jury had an issue with the instructions in general we cannot say they were properly instructed the the charge here was felony murder they were given a felony murder  that issues useless easily disposed of on the fact that the people proved that this defendant took more than just a car and there was specific evidence heard from the defendant's own statement that said he took property from this that they took their clothes they took his things it took his wallet took his money they took his cell phone they took his radio in addition to taking the car so when we give an instruction that acts are out so you send because it's a magister card with these other goods that just took the car we prove that he took personal property as well so that i'm not very instruction that this defendant had no problem with never asked for a non i can structure to be near the statue and the fact that this is just a definition and it wasn't he just all up or saw fact that maybe gets lost in translation he sold specifically and talked about the money that he took from this that dam and how he used it to break i had better figure to break change and get on the bus and go home and order pizza and jeans and that wasn't nothing so clearly this was the things that he stole from this well made player were punctuated by the state and that jury instruction accurately describes what this defendant took in t