introduced that he was driving a vehicle i mean in your main local street and there was never any issue or question raised with respect to whether or not the public or the state could have easily asked the this particular instance when the motion for directed verdict was made that's when the states it was five days being asked to by the state on its own accord after the evidence had been closed without any prior warning or trial did mrs brown then show that she did not know that her son was going to for reasons you know her son is going to commit a crime and in this particular instance i think you look at the statute steady progress about two sets forth two different classes of individuals who have standing to bring a case and i think other really interesting language in the statute is that the claimant did not know or did not have reason to know if the vehicle was to be one of his friends could result in far at some point maybe getting the keys and drive i don't think the mere possibility that someone could commit a crime in the future that specificity is what's really she is doing everything she can to try to prevent him from breaking the law she's not asking it's not putting him in the position to do it she's trying to take steps to avoid that situation so i mean that i think is really the crux of this case when question because of that myself i mean a lot if if she would have done things to put him in access to the vehicle to actually make it very readily apparent he's like to do it but in this case there'd been nothing in three years there she was aware of it he was private the mere fact that she had people that she met or his friends used to transport him i think it's a big job because i really do i don't think the mere fact that my kid has five or several people that she would allow to drive around the car she couldn't identify them by name that seems to suggest some haphazard control of her car and some haphazard concern over provided that testimony is that right yes and it was more of just reading between the lines it's seems like the battle lines were drawn not as to whether or not he had committed an offense but it was as to the ownership identify on main street route one fifty as a problem spring is that right correct do we know whether or not main street is the same as west main street yes well directional difference on a street and oh well it's not we're not talking about direction we're talking about the actual name of the street through trip ok and then is there any evidence in the record as to logan avenue as to whether or not it's a last name and then that's based on that question and answer colloquy that i just read to you correct ok thank you what i do want to point out is that today counsel just acknowledged the state could have asked the trial court to take judicial notice of the fact that west main main street are public highways so one point with that is there's no argument they are public highways ok that's first and foremost they are public roads well second why did before you go further notice it needs to be a fact beyond reasonable there is no reasonable dispute as to the character of these roads and the trial judge is allowed to look within his territorial jurisdiction and to by common observation take judicial notice of facts that are known they're also allowed to take judicial notice of facts that are easily verified by sources again beyond reasonable dispute we can verified this by looking at any map but he didn't say that it was based on a map he said it was based on basically i know that that's route one fifty say route one fifty and it's a public highway it was his observation which was a proper observation and he was allowed to make it easier that are published maps they are public records and this court can recognize them and judicially notice them as well maybe on a purple fact but when you're talking about an element of an action here and in this elevated it from simple battery to aggravated was the fact that it was an assault that or a battery that happened in the making county jail the trial court took judicial notice that the macon county jail is a public building by virtue of being a public building again it elevated the offense the defendant said i don't think it's proper this court say it is proper and it doesn't matter that is an element of the defense people feel is directly on point and i know  think counsel takes issue with that says it can be distinguished and the basis for distinguishing it is argued to be that the defendant there was allowed to put on evidence that to say to try and support his argument that the jail was not a public building but notably nothing prevented clment here from putting on evidence that logan in maine were not public streets he still had the right current evidence and in any fair trial you can sure abo the evidence that is presented against you even though and that's true even when it is evidence recognised through judicial notice of the fact the court notice this is a public street if he has evidence to combat it which let's be honest he doesn't he can court took judicial notice of the fact that we cannot argue that the streets are public street so while it may not have meant smith sense for his position that was his calculated risk to allow it to stand that the trial court found properly so that these streets are public streets and then that main street is a public street and allow that to stand and that was the calculated risk and maybe not presenting evidence if it existed to the contrary sometimes holding title is the equivalent of ownership but sometimes it simply isn't and so that it is a fair consideration to look at not just who holds the title but who truly owns the car and we presented significant evidence that it was clark who on the car he was stopped in the car and twenty ten he was stopped obviously again for this occurrence he helped pay the insurance for the car gifted the car but more significantly our admissions that he made two officers throughout the arrest and then subsequently when he wanted to retrieve items from the car when it been impounded and he referred to it as his vehicle he wanted to know why his vehicle had been impounded when he didn't have drugs he wanted to know and make sure that his vehicle was properly taken care of he told the tow the employee of the to company take care of my baby she deserves it that is a clear admission of his perspective that he owns this car and i was honest in my statement in my brief in attributing those statements to the officers that testify to it and if this or took that is a mix characterization of a direct quote from him that certainly wasn't the intention because it was clearly identified as his statements to the officer who was testifying to it but his perception is it's his car he pays insurance on it his friends drive it his name's in place and on it he would show the officer mehlis when he was an employee still at the golf course he called him over to show him all the customisation of his car and according to the record it was the interior and the exteriors the way he could wait agent numbers testified was he did show me the vehicle and the interior to different things vehicle and interior i don't recall the exact details but all of the items were testifies and i remember him showing me the vehicle comma the interior comma and describing the features i believe this record supports my argument that he also saw that customisation on the vehicle he said customisation and the features so that means that it was seen so there was a lot of evidence one that mr clark was actually the true owner and as the true owner he knowingly used the vehicle and committed an offense which is substantial and is all we had to prove first for a fo improper but and the trial court did find that that finding is not against the manifest with the evidence but alternatively the trial court recognized claimants rights as a title holder to the vehicle and found that under that consideration she knew or should have known that this was possible to happen and arguments that were made today focused on what she did now did she now had someone told her if someone had told her she was going to go rob a bank if someone had told her ok back what she knew and what she didn't know but the statute is new or could have she knew that he had a significant history he had at least and it's and the record five previous convictions he in december pleaded guilty to aggravated dui for yet another u i while driving with a revoked license she admitted that she knew he had had his license for several years and she knew it was because of these repeated driving violations and this court can take judicial notice of another case where we have much of the same parties we have  are gifted it to his grandmother in that case he was caught driving it he said i didn't have permission to drive it grandmother said i didn't have permission to drive it he didn't have permission to drive it titles in my name he doesn't have permission yes it by his car sometimes but it's mine and in that case they or feature was not found to be appropriate she got to keep the car and this or affirmed it and you can take judicial most of your previous rulings to show that is a pattern here where mr clark will purchase cars and remember this is one of the five cars that gifted to this claimant for which she testified she still own death the time this one was seat so he purchase he gives them to his family members the family members specify they're not housed at my place there it is place but i keep the keys when he gets caught driving them which repeatedly because he says i did have permission to do it  admit that but the pattern is there this is the pattern he was the owner and even if he wasn't she knew or should have known based on the significant history that people knew she gave the keys to people she couldn't identify quite likely were going to give him the keys and he was going to drive and although she said he's with her at all time he did have in the night he was driving the car and it is true the record doesn't explain how he got them standard whereby there is some knowledge that this is going to happen this is likely there's not some generic possible i suspect that there's so i think for all these reasons when you look at the fact when he's actually now committed an offense during that time period when she has the vehicle you're probably right i would be hard pressed back forty three of you all right you well you know once again