those are on the direct appeal with respect to the first issue we know that it offended can be held accountable for the actions of a principal offender if he either shares the intent of the principal offender or he enters into a common design with that offender now the key is that under either theory of accountability the state still has to prove that the defendant either before or during the commission of the offense and with the intent there's not enough to show a shared intent either now is or isn't of course that this is really a shared intent case when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it the scene would argue otherwise your intent would be a more difficult difficult maybe issue to prove wouldn't it than common design yes because you need with sheer intent the actual intent other than just knowledge rights you need you need to have known in this particular case you need to have known  harmed and you need to have known and and intended to help facilitate the actual shooting of the car next to them but the problem in this case is that all the witnesses including the seat some witnesses agreed that there was no crime planned and that she kicked out common design no other i hundred piece of evidence is the fact that everyone in the title again including the state's witnesses all said the only plan they had that night was should go to one party and they were about to come home so if you take one step  suddenly decided no there wasn't beer at the party there were only a couple of girls at the party and they decided it was going to be worth a cover charge they flipped back around to go home and when you're going to believe that i'm sorry they have to believe that it was completely that because these events were explained the reasonable inference is actually directly flows from the actual evidence so that the jury it is up to the jury to disregard or to believe what was in front of them but again it's our common design know what we have yet to identify the other play and criminal activity that's going on that night and indeed everyone agreed they just want to go to a party and go home oh about did he is it conceivable that he could this be what the jury was looking at since we have to take the evidence in the likeness favorable that when mr mentor and his two colleagues walked out of the party there was discussion about hey look at these guys or who are these guys and and right a it has to be basically an element of the offense for him to be able to count towards accountability for that he would  accountability with respect to francisco where they basically it's trying to murder convictions based on their idea that there was an intent to kill the driver jason ventura we don't know all and for that very reason at least with respect to  individuals yes yes but when you're told that you have to just have intent to kill an individual if they are or if they haven't read already that there was an  the individual and then you have to specify on the individual jury verdict forms then you know if they had hypothetically you know made up their mind and some other basis when we're going to cite that jury verdict form they won't do it because the individual is specified on the verdict form so if you look at the instructions as a whole you know there was not confusion on sweetie only that i would go on into the the first issue intent no i think i agree with justice tensions in that specific intent is a more difficult burden to prove i think it was proven i think at the and the jeff specifically notes i believe that satisfies the coming to zion rule under illinois so obviously i think that the majority of the emphasis was on time design but i don't think that a gesture demonstrated in court to them so it is completely up to them to make the credibility assessment and to assess the conflicting evidence and the trial judge who had a similar opportunity might better than we do  gang members that can be the place where the the confrontation starts to come then their car pools out and passes there's again signs flash back and forth on the middle finger they go home they do the oh my gosh something's been shot i'm going to get out of my car and evolve these people here the action and the opportunity on several occasions after they pull out well first of all you know she didn't have to set up the situation where again he could have pulled out but didn't when they're coming out of a second location they are passed by a police car he makes no intent to report the incident by signal the police they threw out the them that also goes to words again membership which is an element here you know if he's frequently with bill in the way then he would qualify as you know again never he never did live self admitted then follow the impaneling and when it stopped at a light pooled into the opposing wing the traffic in order to pull up next to him made the go ahead gesture which was demonstrated to the jury those are the facts that caesar with respect to keep the fashion game science began he's the only person that said that the defendant said those other guys are flat they just get the crown and instead again contradicted by caesar who said no it was actually george who said that did not know the driver at all there's no evidence from the phone records that they call the child they're in fact the only contact that's in the francisco's phone with the contact for george to you conflicting evidence or lack of evidence i completely know that it is with respect to knowledge or planning of criminal activity there's no reasonable inference that can lead to his conviction under accountability there is no evidence of confrontation again that's not enough that does not necessarily give putin ill will upon every defendant who is a c s with a gag they really nice that again association can be a geographical necessity of and again experience here in this case also admitted that many game contacts joining ted you want to just isn't reason to be afraid of him is specially given the fact that he's in a car where a shooting just occurred that he had no prior knowledge was going to happen so again everything is explained or contr