you're honest this appeal presents unique issues regarding the appropriate shropshire of the recovery hearings under section nine of the sexually dangerous persons there are obviously no standardized jury instructions with respect two thousand and seven he filed an application for both for release and conditional release into in two thousand and nine it was a trial and there were jury instructions that were interest person stature the jury must be convinced initially beyond a reasonable doubt for propositions what i will century call the definitional elements and that is if these four things are true you are under the jurisdiction of court and this course jurisdiction in our covering proceeding one question is of course whether or not those four definitional elements continue to exist but there's an additional question in recovering perceiving that was not adequate it was not correctly put in front of the jury in my client's case the other question that must be asked is whether or not the conditions are such that he can be put into the community in question any factual proposition any issue with respect to conditional release if you look at the actual instruction here if you look at the actual instruction good the trail horse approach was particularly factual proposition being put to the jury that this state had to bear the burden and i think that i think that under i think that under our trainer and i think that under cashman given the cash lujan of this court in two thousand two it's clear that the state must bear the burden so if the state must bear the burden to prove that he should not there he should not go for a conditional release where did that happen in this truck if we look at the actual if we look at the actual verdict form  this trial you can see that as the jury would have been picking between the two alternatives for ways and conditional release it's clear that there was never an allocation for there was never a question to the jury with respect to that he continued to be defined as a sexual dangerous person that the guardianship should continue that he should still be under the jurisdiction of the court but placement was not appropriately the sign says so i think no i think i think if any could i think an applicant could see summary judgment obviously which is what we did in this case when they missed their question the deadline because the because the state there must there are scenarios under which of the state state has a burden of recovery proceeding so i don't think i was a legislator i don't think i was a legislative act i think that was a constitutional requirement and i think what's never happened or i think what's unique about this appeal is that no corps has corridor as i said when mr curfew away but i'm sorry to ask you this talk how could clear and convincing be unconstitutional for recovery if clear and convincing withstands problem in there for that's he said it's possible was there anything in the record that shows jury confusion under any notes are there any requests for transcripts of the anything on the time of deliberation that would indicate that there is a jury standards there so i don't think that applies here in trainer when talking about the burden of proof as much as the state the standard of guilty the reasonable doubt and that is to want to hold the legislature change dangerous and it i don't think and we don't think that the very this issue's ready for determination because there was no issue here about conditional release so we would first state that it's it really should it's an academic exercise right now it really shouldn't be decided until we get something where someone's surely if we're the jury is confused or they say yes he deserves a conditional release we can't tell for sure well they do the state has the burden of proof proving it but once that is done i think it's proper function legislature did the right thing and say ok well now for the protection of the public for the health of this individual we're going to err on the side of caution in protecting children and we're going to say look we're going to make the court decide what the conditions of release are for this person i think that's a perfectly rational reason for having this in the stanchions if there is an overwhelming interest in protecting our children from sexual abuse so falls on the side of citing the children in sexual abuse victims and the runners certainly understand that these are tough situations these people are sick  our during the course of preparing this could you think of a reason not to give a jury instruction to comply with the statutory language i can think of no reason i mean when there is usually i mean i think the general were the greed is firing are serious than just money for a ten contractual obligation this is you know people that can be victimized by someone and to be you know their entire life here was sent down to answer questions about what was going on for supervisors they didn't send out a supervisor to answer questions about what was going on now office they sent in system down to say well i'm an officer of the court i'm saying there were staffing changes repetition individuals can file for release a year after they have been denied which obviously cases up and down the state with respect to that but even in the context of this case it's not because let me if i could just go to could pose a question judgment or remain the case for jury propositions instructions there consistent with the constitution and also of the statute thank you very much for