very far a serving as an affirmative defense if that's the same things debussy and delivering it to me we submit to the same principle should apply when the shoe is on the other foot and the state tries to drugs from him injecting heroin in private behind his back and without his permission both of the state's sole purpose witnesses holly stewart and john ellis testified that upon waking up with the my shit she also took his car drove it to us gas station went into the women's restroom and consistent with her half of injecting their own private proceeded to inject the apparently failed those into her system even her conduct of taking the heroin out of the house and resorting to shooting it up in a public restroom is consistent with the evidence she stole the fatal error and since a person who stole it would typically not want to be hanging around the seat of that that this was a huge problem for the state because to convict someone of drug use thom it had to prove that mr burton unlawfully delivered a controlled substance to another and that person's death was caused by the injection of any amount of that controlled substance yet again if you already have conversely if she took it from him he still had possession of it is a limo that she took it and therefore he did not deliver it to propositions cannot be true the state other source of heroin but there was no evidence of that knowing how to draw inferences that that was the most probable source but it wasn't firmly established because you know there's no way to prove jury knows the glaring deficiency of the state's case but that's what the record shows and we can all see that now it's not often dead the jury gets something is clearly wrong but it happened here people the defendant does not get a retrial which sounds like what he's asking for today instead of reviewing court must dress whether after viewing the evidence you know michael's favorable to the prosecution holly and jar the problem for the defendants the jury was aware of this allegation the jury did not disregard the information supposing counsel says you today the jury simply did not in that case was discarded as the actual constructive attempted transfer of possession of a controlled substance with or without consideration whether or not there was an agency relationship now i want to be a defense attorney and i did not want anything that were potentially confuse the juror to come here and that statement to me sounds very confusing and yet the issue of doing appears on its face to be one of an actual transfer of possession there's no need to give them for their instruction in defendant doesn't come here in here today and say how that could have helped his the defendant also complained state meet the oregon to the jury that defendant was lacey's only here on connection and i think in response to that because this did come up in the probable at the motion judgment on the needs of the sentence there was testimony that within a period of six years this was the nd person whose death was attributable to the defendant he got seventeen years it is right in the  not sure how opposing counsel managed to gain entry into the jury was deliberating but in fact we don't know what the jury was thinking we ever know the jury was thinking to posit that the jury chose help clarify it's not that the definition of delivery per se distinguishes between that and other forms of property transfer but it's the subject right in a deliberate the person in charge asked to be the one making the transfer of property in a bet it's the other person who is making the transfer of property and you know clearly we should not be confused about the difference between delivery and  the same thing as saying that there was no evidence that he was the only supplier it logically a does not follow from that show that that clearly was an error but again we rely primarily on the fa