that the public official would die is also not a true threat again the first district in people v good when found that a statement from the public defender in front from d i i defendant demanding a public official to come out course mail mr smith only resorted to name calling and accusations of corruption he never made any statement that he wanted to physically harm the the the judge indeed in this case he never made any statements that he had any any intent to harm the judge or that he had the means to carry out that intent all he said here's you will hear from someone and i will take matters from their one witness even testif only evidence that the state offered to establish that there was a true trap was mr judge bolling joe's subjective belief that there was a trap and two other crimes evidence that are disconnected from the threats first is that the other crimes evidence a disconnected from the force who are disconnected or temporarily and contextual temple as in in time the other crimes evidence occurred that it's more likely than not that the what mr smith is expressing in doors other crimes evidence though those slants what he's expressing may be forced to ration after the charges and not preexisting prostration at the message and see if the message clearly and unambiguously expressed an intent to harm someone made a deal the person was communicating the message may well have an intent but does his word definition of a true threat is whether it be communicated message expresses an intent when i should explain just is how it is it pushing me well or may not have an intent to cause harm that person also may not have an intent to express such desire but the words that he's communicating why he is seeing to his audience does draw the word suggest such an intent and in disk is the words are too vague and the problem with the additional other crimes evidence because the jury could look beyond the antenna element and just say this guy's a bad person he's citing bible verses he's making wild accusation against drudge is same things  by baseball we can and playing bowling ball it the jury can look at that little pasty and ted element and just say this guy is not someone we want out under street and we should find him guilty and that's the suggest that that desire to on the judge existed on october twenty seventh it's possible and it's more likely than not that that desire resulted form the fact that he was arrested any fact if you look at the crime so if you accept the fact that the statements made while he was arrested while he was the custody in themselves were at those speeds and if they are crap or crude simply because he's prostrated with the he's talking about a second chance to look at the issues and we don't know what is going to happy and enjoys ballinger told you at that second chance even said anything he doesn't see i'm going to urge you a couple of guys are going to come over and he doesn't see i'm going to be to our regular family members he just says you will be hearing from someone soon that someone can be anyone in this state and call in the judicial inquiry were all given the fact that you accuse him of corruption that is the most likely some official conduct taken by the public official i am willing to concede that the message to voicemail the october twenty seventh voicemail was merely as a result of the ruling in this case but the first issue still remains asked a desire to harm the judge and in this case he did not on the voice of the slips that came out of cannot provide contacts because they are separated in time but also in context because they came after light most favorable favorable to the state and the rational trier of fact could have found the central elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt now a poet council continues to try to distinguish the voice mail from the subsequent over the state's position is that they cannot be distinguished they all stem from as justice here is getting at these this is missiles of the defendants miscellaneous room of the civil cases as it was noted slips was to show his intent at the time the communication was in fact given to judge voluntary and i would want to define all of the elements relating to the  with in the voicemail itself correct because you didn't get we have to you have to be able to establish all of the elements of the offense by the voice mail the voicemail message itself what words with him the voicemail message indicates the conveyance of a threat in regards to the voicemail message or h state focuses on the statement such as we'll be hearing from someone try to give him a chance to reconsider while he's still got a chance to i was trying to do something correct trying to get it done legally so i'll take it from there  the fact that this voicemail was the subsequent day of the denial of these miscellaneous from these cases shows that defendant is extremely upset with the denial of these m r cases and that now that things have not been done legally he is going to take it the legal route which as testified on cross examination by defendant judge will injure did state although not dispositive that he was he was afraid of future bodily harm that it would occur through these through this voicemail alone by itself he said it caused him quite a bit of concern and the clerk even s d that it was a watch your back statement i think when looking at all this evidence but we have to be able to find words that convey a threat so notwithstanding what personnel defendant was trying to give the judge ballinger should another chance to reconsider model he's got a chance in so it's nose words there you're saying convey a threat yes it's those words along with of all girl language well all over language doesn't by itself indicate a threat it can be an expression of anger or frustration which wouldn't be charge he said so i'm sure he'll be hearing from someone i was trying to give him a chance to reconsider while he still got the chance to and that he was trying to do something correct something legal so he'll take it from there and i think it is important to look at his inmates lives because although the defendant does try to distinguish them things importantly i'm contractually different they're not because they still refer back to this initial voicemail you look at the threats within the slip he's the same line of corrupt propaganda that he's trying to argue judge going jurors pursuing against him and then with all these biblical passages that further evidence is what his intent was at the time of this voicemail wanted to give the judge a chance to reconsider if you consider that a motion to reconsider at that point in fact trial judge has a certain period of time which to reconsider a ruling  to say i'm not so sure that the words you have identified convey a threat as opposed to a request to reconsider a ruling that had been made how would you respond to that what the state can understand that position your honor i believe that is why i follow they did attempt to introduce these inmates slips because they did further what his intent was and they were arguing as the jury was instructed it is these inmates lips were introduced for the limited purpose of showing what defendants intent or identity was but the if they can serve as a substitute for an element of the offense the element of defense has to be present with in that voicemail the element being a threat so what is it exactly that is can bang according to webster and intent an expression of intention to inflict evil injury or damage know i've already stated it twice so i'm not sure if there's much purpose in saving it again but it would just be the voicemail in its entirety where he's saying he's done things legally and now he is going to get it taken care of by himself i don't believe that sounds like a motion to can reconsider in the state's eyes you disagree with mr c your means that it's necessary to establish the truth though i disagree with that  then determine whether whatever was said is enough to create this reasonable apprehension yes i do agree with that and i think we're looking at all the evidence in this case that is present again he's the defense extremely upset that the judge denied these most of these motions are the cases that he had and then not the next day he leaves as upsetting voice now you know i'm pretty sure trial judges have thick skin they probably receive some backlash from individuals and the fans on a daily basis in court so for this judge normal charges and even senate himself he was quite a bit quite a bit concerned with the statement and that it did cause him the fear of future bodily harm so i think i think hard correct i'm just discussing that the judge did have that subjective fear of future bodily harm although that is not dispositive of whether there was a true threat that is what the state's position is regarding that  have any additional question properly or improperly admitted the state's position is that they were in fact properly admitted to prove the intent and identity of the defendant this was a forfeited issue that defendant did not raise below  there was no affair that occurred and admitting is the only rules of evidence allows this evidence to come in to show intent and identity and so as a result there was no air plan or analysis cannot save the fent and do you heard do you have any more questions regarding these specific issues or any additional questions on the almost two hundred other  found that to not be relevant and even in this case the cork who also would have to stand as a judge because she's been working with the judge for several years she said that the voicemail seems unsettling but he didn't have any