nest conviction for felony murder should be reversed because the issue is instruction given to the jury assume to the elements of the element of proximate cause instruction had no effect on the jury's verdict and mr nash had a constitutional right to have every element of the offense a felony murder determined by the jury yada reasonable rather than instructing the juries to determine for themselves whether the attempted hijacking was the proximate cause of parsed out the issues instruction told them that the hijacking was the cause and as in martinez did the defendant challenge the instructions for giving conflicting definitions of proximate cause or not properly setting forth the element was satisfied but whether any other instructions gave a proper earlier statement of the law regarding proximate cause did not cure the fact that the jury it was not asked to make that determination by themselves from martin as is completely distinguishable from this case further to the instruction in martin as it was different than the current instruction and that it did not contain the paragraph which defined the act in question as bein the forcible felony which this instruction did no because the first proposition in the issues instruction given to the jury told the jury that parts death was or death resulted from the act in question and it only asked the jury to make a determination as to whether  nash performed the act in question and then went on to define the act as being the attempted hijacking therefore the only thing that the jury had to determine was whether or not nash committed  the attempted hijacking or whether the bed was not at issue at trial does this this improper instruction took away the only issue that was ha this had it was a of crowder's act of walking into the alley and shooting at parra nash as he ran away from him but that's near to the events of occurred that's correct be trying to do your back dooring him saying this subsequent event and is the cause when in fact did he not initiate the whole process foreseeability is not  determination that it was a direct and foreseeable result and that is an element that the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt and nash had a constitutional right to have that question put before the jury had a right to have the jury make the determination of whether the the forcible felony was illegal proximate cause of parts death it's  i know you are even if you take a collective view the the problem with its instruction isn't to cure again nash isn't arguing that the issues instruction was incomplete in which other instruction could fill in the the problem is that the in truth instruction said that the proximate cause element was satisfied but that's a different issue as if then what was there like martin is and hudson and that he and in this case the instruction assumed a critical element of the offense of felony murder took it away from the jury and violated mr  is right to have every element of the offense proving beyond reasonable doubt or determined beyond reasonable doubt by the jury and we know the jury didn't preserved error the burden is on the state to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the instruction did not a fact the jury's deliberations whether this instruction directly yours were they sent out a note asking if they could charge him with something or if the charge but convict him of something other than first screen murder the those instructions should never have been given and what the judge should have done is withdrawn the instructions and told the jury to disregard them so that's wh irrelevant to the issue of whether the defendant was guilty of felony murder so that put it in issue before the or no put legal questions before the the jury that were there is not proper  the introductions never tied how the self defense instruction should have no plate or mashed with or if at all with the felony murder instructions and we know that  error it's not nash's burning to establish that he was presumed he was prejudiced prejudiced is presumed it's the burden of the state to establish beyond a reasonable doubt to self defense instructions in asking them to be withdrawn oh yeah he's not only was nash deprived of his right to be no tried by a properly instructed jerk but he was a private jury to disregard them you know again the the issues instructions on felony murder in this case assumed the element of proximate cause which violated mr nash's right to have his fate decided by the jury again the judge committed reversible error by instructing the church the jurors and instruction that's just instruction on mental state it simply clarified in general terms that mr nash did not have to intend to par to die in order to be found guilty of felony murder their instruction did not purport to set forth the particular propositions the jury was supposed to find in this this case so it did not even though it probable that probable cause element again the issue here is not that the jury wasn't told about probable cause the problem is that the issue isn't trucks and told them that that was conflicted with the issues instructions i was gifted good and therefore rather than going any problem it just confused the matter for the jury as to causation so  again this is not a sufficiency of the evidence standard even if this quote were to find that the evidence were sufficient that does instruction it is clear that this court should look at the jury instructions in their entirety is determining whether or not the jury was properly instructed the three instructions that were given with respect to felony murder in the proximate cause theory that was the political to the state to the to the evidence in this case those three instructions are set out in the common log record at page fifty two fifty four and sixty two and knows what those instructions do together is that they inform the jury approximate cause theory of legally responsible combine to do an on an unlawful act the attempt to commit aggravated vehicular hijacking and that the deceased was killed as a first civil consequence of the parties committing that unlawful act so the insured shins did as a whole jury that adequately explained to the jury requirement that the death of the decision had to occur during the defendant's attempt to commit the ag the attempt at vehicular hijacking explain that the death had to be a direct and forseeable consequence of a chain of events set in motion by the defendant and that explained it was sufficient to find that the deceased was killed as a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's on lawful act and not when you're looking at them together clearly those instructions properly conveyed the law relevant to this case  with respect to one i i think the defendant's challenge today you had a question about whether the trial judge properly answered the juries question issue two with respect to the defense of the self defense  justifiable use of force if he is not the initial aggressor those instructions you have to look at why those instructions were before the court the defense theory of this case was that crowder who was the intended victim of the aggravated attempted aggravated  lar hijack the offense here of the case of his that he was the aggressor has that the crime was over when he announced his office and then and they started to run which is not true that the danger was over importance of the law that the danger was over at instructions to the trial judge in order to sort of level the playing field that that's what not with respect to the defendant self defense that wasn't that wasn't a theory but with respect to what the defense had their theory defense and what they in fact argued during closing argument  and that's what they did and that was their theory of the case those instructions were proper to level the playing field in that respect when the jury yesterday question about it and when you look at that specific question the trial judge says i don't really know what this means i mean on the on that instruction on the self defense and struction the note says can this be considered as part of the charge consideration for first degree murder trial judge says i don't really know what that means and so and the defense attorney not only is assisting forfeited but she affirmatively stance or says yes judge i think that's right and she says yes i think that's right so she wants that response because if in fact the jury is considering that felony murder which they say of illinois doesn't ascribe to anymore she's really saying ok maybe i can get them to think that he's the aggressor and then maybe the jury will find that my my client shouldn't be agreed to it i think she almost even wanted it it was as much a question of strategy for her to i agreed the answer that was given in this case  not want those instructions in front of the jury the state and to the extent that she argued that carter was unjustified their argument was that crowd foreseeability and proximate cause are distinct legal concepts from legal justification therefore these instructions had no bearing on the issue in this case in terms of leveling the playing field confusing instructions at the jury and again it's to the state to that brought up this the self defense in its closing arguments before defense counsel even got a chance to argue