has mentioned distinguished him i would say tacitly approved by not overruling twice and i'm also conscious of the fact that two out of three of the people who sat in that case are with us today  a place with good elfie of place of worship when i think that there is a critical distinction because in this place we didn't hand any proof that the plate that the places and i would say that even under the majority holding vigorous we have fewer facts here that would say that this was being used as a as a place of religious worship on the  the countryside old country churches and so forth but i also know that for people who live there a lot of them even if they did not go to church there even if they were with presumptions in line with the jury's verdict we had a jury in this case presumed to be competent presumed competent trial judge that oversaw everything that happened at the trial it's the jury's job to weigh the evidence and its credibility majority opinion said that although police testimony might support the inference that he was familiar with the area at the time of the trial there is nothing about the testimony there would support the m p s that he was familiar with the area on the date of the offense but in this case we had two officers who had a combined over fifty years of law enforcement experience testifying on the culture of the state specifically officer every nation has just a lone eighteen years of experience with the city of taylor behl police department city of killers where the defendant home or meth lab sits so he has been a police officer for eighteen years in the city of keeler mill the jury could easily infer from just based on that in his reference to not just one church but four churches within there it was approximately under the statute that that's a reason weapons that this police officer knows what he's talking about i'm just  specifically named when he was testifying not only did he refer to that as just as well as dissented that that would be enough for him to conclude that the jury could infer he also testified hello and a police officer for the city of taylor belittling and i have been for church in that case was right outside going to work or else so it's reasonable for us to assume no one thought to ask important every injury question because the church was right there new did say was that the legislature has made clear that reasonable inferences can be drawn by the jury to support what they are asked to determine based on the instruction and the fact that this jury heard that you did say that the officers testimonies did support the inference that he was familiar with the area of the time of trial but it does not support the immigrants that he knew what he was talking about on the date of the offense whereas in this case detective everett nation inferences that flow from the backs prison and apply his or her own common knowledge regarding the church to find that it is what it purports to be assuming that girl is an assumption is correct that this town is a small town it's reasonable to assume that some of these jurors in this christian just did the i believe the catchall face of religious worship or personage to kind of having to discern what's a church and what isn't a church so that it might be easier to just have this general catchall whoa let me ask you this about the issue of the the traditional church the state might have to produce additional set said they did not say shall this free person may have to put on additional evidence to support that this place was what it purports to be however in this case we're dealing with not just one church with do not this down from an aggravated conviction to a simple conviction there's no question this has to be remembered for recent sitting and there's no question she can't get the higher sentence than than what she's here before are you familiar with the dates of past just of so many years and i mean i've been taylor bill in the exit it's been awhile since i've been a taylor bill but i also don't think there should be a different standard for what the state has to prove they were under is in chicago or