involuntary manslaughter those are the words of the iowa supreme court people versus steven cherry so if this court agrees that some evidence was presented the file that if believed by the jury make inferences based on the evidence presented there were two pieces of evidence in this case that is believed by a jury would support involuntary manslaughter first mr beasley testified that his gun that at the moment the gun went off did not look like mr beazley was pointing it at anyone in particular now the standard here is this if even very slight evidence that this is a bit strange because normally use of discretion standard presents a real obstacle on the field but because the very slight evidence standard that governs the trial court is so mr beasley went on to testify that he was also afraid of the crowd and when he was asked how he's got that it just charged accidentally he hypothesized that it could have been a reaction based on the fact that he was he testified that he'd been shot at in the past by people who were screaming at them that they were killed and this was this was on his mind he surrounded by a angry crowd of about thirty people and six of them start coming  and he testifies that yeah he was afraid of one way to synthesize these two pieces of this testimony these two strains to interpret them together is that mr beasley fl tense he was afraid he had his finger on the trigger and he was startled when the victim made a sudden move various ways that's one interpretation that i've argued for in the briefs now that's the only way to interpret this testimony without ignoring part without making a credibility terminations that is supposed to be the jury's job to fire it to find that mr beazley intentionally fired the gun which is a factual issue that was whether he intentionally fired the gun to find that on this testimony a fact fighter with me to ignore his statements repeatedly through direct exam and on cross examination he repeatedly said the gun just went on those are th earlier testimony and that is not a product that is not within the power of the trial court in this situation both job jury now and instruction on involuntary manslaughter must be given even other and that's not clear on the record that they were that itself is a factual determination that should have gone to the jury but even if we assume for the sake of argument that as a matter off they were somehow a system that question so most of the jury instructions s in addition to that said i didn't mean to kill him i didn't mean to hurt him i was just trying to scare you hard frost the pressure of the first degree murder it's irrelevant what you were thinking while you were doing it that's a very different situation from what happen attentional sway but the defendant argue that i didn't mean that i didn't mean to hurt him i didn't mean that just by purposely swinging that knife you've already committed first degree murder the person dies that wasn't disputing that and who makes clear that where you admit circumstantial evidence doesn't completely rule out the possibility that the jury the found his testimony credible and that's the closing argument of the prosecutor after the trial judge has made this this determination and said no you can't have this instruction the prosecutor goes in front of the jury and argues mr beazley gave two actual verdicts number one was the next thing i knew the gun went off the second version was i was in fear for my life because i shot it before so  finders of the facts in this case you get to decide whether you believe was all or neither of those statements if it's a prosecution closing argument there are two threats in the testimony if the jury didn't believe first one that the gun just went off they should have found him guilty of involuntary but that question it already been taken away they didn't have that option if they believe both of the statements they still should have known guilty of involuntary manslaughter that's not holding people versus tartly but th slightly older partly stands for the idea that this pointing a gun a loaded weapon or if you mean being is a reckless act whatever happens after that if you don't intentionally fire the gun that's a reckless act and that person dies as a result of that defense counsel mostly focused on the voluntary manslaughter instruction so it's a bit of an odd wrinkle that there wasn't much discussion but now people versus ever makes clear that the evidence could support the  testimony that support either instruction second degree murder which is unjustified i believe in self defense or involuntary manslaughter even though those are different let's raise that legally it's as if the evidence can support either one or both instructions testimony and if the jury believes his testimony they should have found guilty of involuntary manslaughter on that basis truck or should have instruction now we haven't discussed this with boys testimony was that she didn't see the shooter she saw flash of course her credibility was called question when she did say her previous statement to the police was that it didn't look like  dismiss the judge dismissed or her testimony based on the obvious credibility issues of course there are multiple other witnesses to the shooting that supported the state's argument  admissions on his own testimony was that the he did point the group he did point the gun at the group victim when he did feel threatened by the victim he was trying to defend this family the victim was the only one refusing this command move the victim was dancing towards him aggressively putting gloves on which also threatened the defendant and finally the victim made a sudden movement directly before shot of course all these things amount to be either a just isn't that really a question for the jury that the jury never got the answer well i think i would argue that this court in jackson there must be the evidence to be slight to require  mean to fire the weapon if all is needed is in this situation is very offended to say that there's never going to be another case again where the firing of the weather isn't in dispute premeditation felt friends of selfishness own a gun accidentally went off or any other state of mind to make sure that all options are checked off for instructions of lesser than the first degree murder  example that's what all three medical experts testified consistently to one for them to stay on also there was the fact that when they didn't use a gun or any weapon at all it was a fistfight so of course any reasonable or not any reasonable or easily first trial or didn't but it was reasonable to assume the involuntary manslaughter possibility there here all we have is defendants defendants w gun going off or dropping a gun here there's no evidence whatsoever of any malfunction or effective gun there's no struggle there's no body bumping into defendant and dropping the gun basically you know covering all bases saying well i didn't i didn't mean to shoot i didn't mean to shoot the gun in case you don't believe myself in the story in this in these situations that's why exactly in this court people versus crimes of people versus jackson oh there must be something more than the defendant's claim there must be something all the other evidence in this case goes against if in this claim even the rest of  all why give the trial court any prescription to reject or through any instruction if there are you the other is any factual reference in the case a recent case in the first district people versus rejected the defendant's testimony basically stating that if it takes the victim in the head took it out of the room recklessness so they would need an involuntary manslaughter instruction but the important part of that is that definitive just like in this case of the fears of concealed carry honan's that somebody will think that a gun is useful for self defense and in a situation and maybe just doesn't apply to this  we don't know much about him until sentencing but i've never faced an angry group before i did purposely take the weapon and i thought displaying it might and the gun goes off and i already told you i did point the direction of the group but i didn't think that i was going to hit anybody i didn't think that i was going to shoot anybody and i certainly wasn't shooting at an individual testifies like that is that outlandish no idea being that you start with the premise that a serious and believes it's reasonable to take a gun to this event because it will help provide some safety that talks that would make you think about self defense but why doesn't also make you think about the alternative that he does something that an experienced person with a gun might not have done that is fires off because the start again there in this case there is no evidence of any and experience or experience or anything else with a gun in iraq there's a absence of he's a citizen that makes the the general direction of the group that yes i just think that the door this would open would be again there from a policy standpoint there would be no detriment to stating that the gun but i understand your floodgates theory that yeah that and this what this is this would be detrimental to a defendant as well because the defense counsel you know very valid reasons for not involuntary manslaughter instruction at the very least it wasn't of use discretion here i think the trial court interpreted it exactly like i did after reading the record including mr mccoy's testimony and including  constitutional guarantee of a right to a fair trial this is a jury instruction case it's not a reasonable doubt case simply talking about whether question should have been submitted to the jury at all if this if this court's decision opens the floodgates do all the rest of the time it's not a particularly persuasive argument to me that maybe i misunderstood i thought you seem to be difficult because the defense attorney might not want to get a best of five that the guy would choose just five because he wanted to