answer questions on any of my favorite scenes by wilson a sixteen year old high school student with documented special education needs was convicted of st degree murder and serving thirty seven years even though the trial evidence over he left then he leaves with the shooting so bad he did leave after this was over but witness at russell buckner testified that bobby did not actually flee in the same direction as the enough the state needs to prove that obvious shared ages criminal intent to buy that there is a common criminal design between them because they did not do so here they only show the fabulous nearly present at the scene and that's not enough for account afterwards when he was interviewed by the police at the ask them where they were where the gun was he was able to explain some things about the gun so he must have met with the shooter afterwards so if you look really submission of the right and there's just no evidence of that here i'm an example of a case where they found that there is no accountability in the same type of situation risk people need taylor where the defendant was driving the food that was driving the principal offender around and drove him away after the offense and the court held that that's still not enough even though that he drove from the way he uses getaway driver ice skating from the scene is not an element of the crime it needs to be shown  reason and there's no affirmative evidence again the battery did anything to facilitate ages commission of the crime so even if you take all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to say that he did believe that he might have had some ideas on what happened to the order weapon this doesn't add up to accountability where you don't have evidence that he shared a v s criminal intent or that there was a common criminal design between them without this trial it was merely present at the crime scene and  research discussing this is a case that's entirely about accountability during deliberations the jury asked a question indicating that they did not know cme mere presence and in turn did not understand that standard perfect babie under an accountability theory the question was this the law regarding accountability does that mean that a person is legally responsible for the actions of another person because they were presidents during the crime and there is a reasonable doubt as to why they were present during the crime in the other in other words they're asking if they should convict i v if they believe he was present and they're not sure why he was present of course this is incorrect they can't convict badly and must they find the honor reasonable doubt the body was more than merely present at the scene this is a specific question on a plaintiff walk and the trial judge had a duty to answer it how a way that the judge could have answered that question arose with rd instruction that was entirely based on the accountability statute and based on the case law on it if the court did not want to give that entire instruction another alternative would be for the court to just give the accountability statue mere presence at the crime scene does not render a person accountable for the offense they would have been able to fully understand the idea of accountability asked required or as articulated in the statute the jury didn't get any information and we're presence in these jury instructions from the from the instruction on accountability given this issue is fully preserved in the case state can't prove that the court's refusal to answer this question was  harmless the jury's question again showed that they did not understand a plaintiff a lot not only in point of law but the central point of law in this case the jury by law is entitled to an answer to this question and without an answer by was deprived of a fair trial no sound reason so if the judge in this case still decided i watched the e r i and i watched robbie's testimony and i'm going to only listen to this and ignore the expert if it's improper he needs he can't reject that screws me again for no reason also in people began as which is very important here the court held that a judge's personal assessment of any r i provides little if any insight into it whether an individual can understand miranda so the same nevertheless she said that she decided that his effort level was still low and decided not to test him whatsoever so because karen i was opinion what is more thorough and based on more evidence and because the court erred by relying on its own opinion instead under either arguments two or three more that a new sentencing hearing is ordered under arguments for and good morning so again your honor with respect to the reasonable doubt issue the jury properly found defending guilty of murder based on accountability in doing so they probably rejected defendant's theory of mere presence because transcript welfare and going to read but it seem like after his initial denial he puts himself in the car before he walks right before before getting to the car there was before them the murder itself and the circumstances and again the evidence at this juncture must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution showed that defendant and a j were best friends that they had spoken together earlier that day they were both outside the barbershop that night that the defendant had looked through the barbershop saw the victim and as he admitted in his statement this victim was known to wear expensive jewelry that everyone coveted defendant was waiting outside the barber shop he approached the victim as the victim was about to get into his car and got into the car with the victim and immediately thereafter his best friend a j also gets into the car and this allowed for a reasonable inference that defendant and a consciousness of guilt and going to the statement that he made after the murder after he fled the scene in the same direction as the specifier and a j it shows that he initially like to the police he gave many stories he get i was in the barber shop i walked in i walked out a j was in the broader shop he walked out before me i spoke to the victim i waited outside i asked for a ride but those things he finally fessed up that's not what happened he then finally said no i was waiting outside i didn't have bus fare and so when the victim who my auntie knew i went up to him and asked him for a ride but that was negated by defendant's own admission in a statement regarding where he was positioned in the car when he got in where there was indication that he was sitting in the back he had asked for right and he was sitting in the back and a j as soon as he got it was right there got in the car in the fro and so again his lies to the police his initial denials as i don't know anything yes wasn't a critical factor that went into showing his consciousness of guilt as well as a circumstance that showed that he was part and parcel with a j his best friend and it also shows what happened during one while the murder was occurring in the car and it was his actions of he remained in the car while a j got in pointed the gun at the victim he stayed there while the struggle took place and the jury on the gun over the gun he remained in the car after the st shot and as dr testified the nd shot came came about one to two minutes he still stayed in the car and then you only got out afterwards and this continued presence rob that the entire office offense was going on along with a reasonable conclusion that he was involved but it gets better because after the murder and after getting outside of the car he doesn't stick around to talk to the police and say i was just there i saw this let me tell you what happened instead he ran in the same direction as his best friend and he did not report it to the police and then as we just discussed when he did talk to the police he lied and then he finally admitted i was in the car but you know a j someone who did it and then he did give statements regarding having knowledge of what a j did with the gun and this was indicative of a continued association and under the accountability case law the factors that need that should be considered in can be considered mere presence is not enough it can be considered with his presence during the crime his flight from the scene his failure to report the crime and his continued association and in this case all that evidence was presented to the jury and the jury rightfully rejected the defense theory that was presented of mere presence based on that and based on the evidence that that was presented to the jury he was properly found guilty and and the i p a committee has clearly stated that i p i fight point three i should cover as the accountability principles as well as the mere presence  concept that the jury was inquiring about and that in this case there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to give this non i p i because the five dollars which does cover a mere presence was given and an abuse of discretion by the trial court occurs when there is no reasonable entity that would take the same view and in fact this court on four of these four cases that i cited in my brief not all thomas wilson and tom bodett has held that the non i p i on mere presence is not necessary when five point zero three is given now yes there was a jury instruction a jury no but that's still did legal principles of for a specifically what they asked for the not the presence concept and that the trial court correctly you know again gave the i p i five point zero three which the courts have said cover mere presence and in this case there was no abuse of discretion and the there was no abuse of discretion with respect to the response by to clarify that well again i think they what the jury what the defense wanted was not in keeping with the principles of mere presence where i believe the p i was not in keeping with accountability principles where it asked the jury to mere presence that flight from the scene doesn't doesn't matter and that and i'm sorry i'm just reviewing i mean and that the defendant didn't does not oppose the commission of the crime well those are all factors that the jury could consider the non i p i that the defense wanted specifically wanted to indoctrinate the jury in their  jury to go back to review the instructions more closely and that there are question and creamery regarding mere presence was within the instructions and for them to review and eleven more time is that is that is that we should read out well again if the well one also has to look at the fact that when the jury was given that response they did not come back and say judge we've tried and we still don't understand now this was an appropriate response based on the fact that the i p i five o three has been found to hold all the accountability principles  what he had among the options that he did have was it of was the one of the options that he did actually exercise and the one that he did have was that please review the instructions that you've been given the legal principles and that was an option available yes could he have given on another hand the non idea or could he have given us a hybrid of of that yes he could have given that but the issue is did the child co of uses discretion and opting to ask the jury to review the instructions that they had before and i submit to this court that it was not an abuse of discretion that it was consistent with the fact that they had been given that i p i five point zero three and the jury and the court correctly asked the jury to review that instruction and see if it address their concerns and can you person is legally responsible for the actions of another person because they were present during the crime and there is a reasonable doubt as to why they were present during guess that sounds like they're totally and completely confused when they're asking can somebody be held instruction seems to answer the question posed i don't understand why the judge would not have answered that question i just while looking boggles my mind well just in looking at the nine i p i that you just read i mean with respect to the last parameter which is flees from the scene well we all know that flight from the scene is indicative of a consciousness of guilt and so that's contrary for to tell the jury that they don't need to consider that that does not indicate one way or the other but in this case and saying it doesn't indicate guilt which is totally contrary to well established legal preceden initial instruction but again what if we're looking at why the trial court reviewed and and the trial court again had the opportunity to review this and the standard of review for this court is planned with respect to all the other issues i would rely on our brief and asked that in all of our arguments be considered and that the defendant's my conviction and hi i that he had heard ha say could you take off your watch anyone would know that it was at the scene present at the scene i'm damned if you can even if you want to take all these inferences in favor of in the light most favorable to the state that they were friends that he knew the motive that he knew what happened to the gun that he fled from the scene none of this is enough this doesn't show that badly either facilitated the crime or planned it all this shows is that bobby was merely present at the scene mere