defendant was racially motivated because hebrew words that have racial connotations obviously and he knew the words would cause someone to be afraid or feel demeaned but the fact of the words had racial connotation doesn't mean that the defendant had a racial bias if that were the case everything from satire to academic dissertations are that were just that are racially motivated would be would fall into the hate crime statute but isn't that where we have to start with the words themselves yes however the case was clear that you also look at you look at the context and context is everything and judge the callus in his findings said and this was the state's own evidence the defendant said the reason i did this is because my coach had accused me of being racist that made me angry i was drunk i decided to show what a real racist would do and i wrote these words and just the count was both in finding the defendant guilty and at sentencing count me as he was first with let's assume that the  correct but it's our position that the judge accepted those explanations because we are because go ahead because our and find and believe when we found him guilty and at sentencing he said even though that might have been his motivation and this is what he found him guilty the fact of the matter is he wrote the words in question he knew the words that he wrote because someone to be afraid or to feel demeaned that was the jumping off point for the judge's application of the facts to the law  st it's even clearer he said there isn't any question in my mind that he wrote these things even if he did it in the sense of saying this is what a racist would stay or say or do they are still here now in my mind racially motivated the court said they were racially racial bias and just because did not find that the defendant had a racial bias and in the state's own brief they do not dispute that judge for callous except at the defendant's explanation what they argue in their brief a is that they they ask this court to step in to judge the callouses its stead and they say well one might left a trier of fact might be looked to wonder why he would have done this that's not the standard the factual finding based on credibility findings by judge but callous as to why the defendant did this those are reserved to the trial court they can only be reversed by this court one who put in and put shawn nolan on the stand and mr fink on the stand and say absolutely we did not know each other i've never met him i've never met her  i did not know that she lived there that any african american lives there the reason i did this was i was mad at my coach and i was drunk plus i'm going to be in the defendant's take statement he said i absolutely was not trying to get that kind of a reaction out by writing these words from an african american person or anybody and he said it was a stupid thing to do and if i could  myself doing that i would have punched myself or the courts around this contradictory though america internally inconsistent where the court says even though that might have been his motivation but that goes on the so i can read b c because of the court knows the law and then says the his confusion came and as just because he confused knowledge of the consequence with motive he said that the defendant knew that this would cause someone to be afraid ok now legitimate consequence is different from motive motive is when you desire a consequence and an example the effect of what these words would have on someone that the men they were roche these words were and the fact that they had a racial overtone that that meant that the hate crime occurred but you need you don't just need a you need a racially biased motive now the perhaps a very good example of this distinction is in this court opinion and people versus will keep at page six fifty on your honor's looked at when you were addressing the constitutionality of the hate crime statute you looked at this did the ordinance in r a v and they're all you needed for a bias motivated crime was that that person the defendant put a swastika or a burning cross on someone's property and know that it would arouse anger or fear a lot because of the racial connotations that was struck down as unconstitutional that's pretty much on all fours with what church because found you know what his reasoning rights in if you do you committed a crime criminal damage well that just means you committed the crime and that the the racial nature of it and the effect on those who would see it have you have to read is it as clear as i would like it to be you know however you look at the the finance trial you also look at what the judge said at sentencing and saying and repeating again that even if that's the case you know the state challenged the credibility of that explanation in their closing arguments if their argument had had any traction with  that he wrote the words in question that they would cause someone to be afraid or to me and also this court can't ignore the fact that judge patel stood state at sentencing i do not believe in my god c supreme court said the primary focus of the statute was intended to be directed towards biased motivation of the perpetrator rather than towards the victim this was a stupid thing to do no one disputes that he was drunk no one disputes that but but that doesn't mean that doesn't convert his actions to hate crime for a misdemeanor criminal damage when the evidence that the state put on is i did this because i was mad at my coach because he accused me of being racist and i was going to show what a racist with do but there was no evidence to duce to on was there that he told the coach or anyone told the coach that this it happened or that he let the coach know ahead of time or certainly afterwards that rice had been done right so show what had to have been done it's attributable most likely to the fact that he was intoxicated in fact  when he was giving his statement the officer said to him  said to him you know maybe when you get drunk a different you know maybe of a bias that you have comes out and he said absolutely not absolutely not but he did say leaving the party and drinking they went to their dorm looking for a student who was outside hopefully smoking so they could get a cigarette so they're waiting around for a cigarette then he gets the bright pointing out that the defendant when he's questioned so as the cop says a police officer says well do you know her you know and and did you know one african american lived there and the defendant says there aren't that many african americans on campus so her probably half senior that instructor said he and he didn't he didn't know her and she told me who she was twenty eight years old she was an r a for that dorm the defendant lived off campus and she'd only moved in like two and a half months before so he said when he lived in that dorm it was the are a white white male named tony i don't know if there's that the mayor is again judged to callous he wrote the words in question that he knew that those words he wrote would cause someone to be afraid to be feel demeaned on page one eighty of the record judge the kills also says that  off that's his story but i think if we look at the circumstantial evidence that was introduced at trial and the reasonable inferences that flow from that circumstantial evidence there's more than enough evidence here to demonstrate that this was racially biased and this was the motivation for sufficient to show racial motivation necessarily but again i think if you take this in the entire context and that's what we're talking about is placing these cases in context ok goodness was the problem in some of the other free speech cases there was no cont here we take those pieces of evidence the evidence that mr berger admitted that he thought the word negro was derogatory the evidence that mr burton admitted he knew the k k k stood for klux klan orange tennis that makes it kind of dark so it's not a moving along with it in any way that anyone wanted it would jump out and see this is done in my under the cover of darkness this is not some demonstration as to what a racist would mourning racially motivated number one event the statement she pulled from the record indicating that judge be callous if you didn't think that the defendant had racially biased feelings there for on and i don't think there's any dispute whatsoever that this crime was driven by a racial bias directed towards an african american specific references to something that's so and that you see that it was directed towards an african american i was trying to find out what you were referring to are you getting that from the words that were used or something else that you for free to today the  that were used the fact that it was so much him what what were you referring to when you made that statement a minute or two ago the visual racially motivated that these words were directed at an african american well the words themselves negro we hear blacks in k k k again i think it is one of those givens in american life that when k k k jews we all want to be talked about again another reasonable inference who can be drawn from these words saying that the defendant's coach was stupid but i'm saying that at the time that the defendant wrote these words yeah he exaggerated the the accusation of racism that hit the coach had made towards him by writing what a real racist would do he was ridiculing his coach the if words alone were enough to convict a person of hate crime there would be everyone from late night comics to academic professors who would be your commission of a crime that you've just done the underlying crime if you don't have a racial bias and you committed criminal damage to property you don't criminal damage to property even if the words themselves have racial connotations and the state is repeatedly talking about reasonable inferences can be drawn but to tell us made findings of fact those can only be reversed if it's manifest their manifest why he did this just patel's time on why he did it and he said i don't my gut feeling is you don't have a racial bias we're just we're we're just a callous went off the rail just enough that put us here is he said he equated racial motivation for writing the words with a racially biased motivation and maybe it's because the statute says by reason of a person's race where is the case law first amendment case law says it has to be bias motivated it can't it can't clear in people versus real kicky who defend then went on a homophobic rant in a pizza hut because he just he thought a homosexuals touching his food he was pounding on them he not it's pretty clear there's a bias and and they act on their bias ok there is a connection there there is no connection because here because there is no b cool damage to property and i just want to emphasize that it's misdemeanor criminal damage property that's the only predicate criminal damage listed for a hate crime so even though this occurred on the grounds of a college that it could have been separately charged could have been elevated to a felony it wasn't separately charge and the hate crime statute is specific in saying it's only misdemeanor