admission into evidence of a lengthy video recording of the defendant's interrogation actually two recordings of interrogations plan to focus my comments today on the first issue but of course i'd be happy to entertain questions on either on the  acquitted of an account based on straight robbery convicted of the count based on the attempt robbery and it's that conviction we argue was not who you had a reasonable doubt no it's not what you might think of as a traditional reasonable doubt argument where the defendant's arguing the state failed to prove he was present or involved in something you know or was there when it happened but rather the argument is that the state's evidence was insufficient to prove that specific underlying felony the attempted robbery instead the evidence tended death under the criminal code but not a robbery and so there for not an attempt robbery you would raise a challenge and it kind of focus on two areas where the evidence fall short in terms of comment during several hours of interrogation asking you know what was going to happen the defendant said pills who is not identified by any other name but apparently the person who actually did the shooting pills said he was going to take those monies still being the victim that statement isolated and taken out of context might tend to suggest they're considered in context the whole statement  evidence largely overwhelmingly supports this plan to sell marijuana she quality marijuana at an inflated price nacho's a theft and not in time probably because there isn't anything else that would indicate that there was a plan or girlfriend happens to be the sister so calls the girlfriend i'm looking to buy some guy you know when i'm a parent you keep them with a dealer and would have resolved this sister says well let me call my brother who is my client the defendant and she he's going to take them over to the weed man's house and again this is the only need we have for the person where they were going they're going to believe me and tell us to make this feel better and there's some discussion between the defendant and pills and possibly a third person only in november of one the decision in that case and again there's no corroboration of any plan here it means even if we take the defendant statement from you know from these hours  videotapes interrogation tape that one statement say well that yeah that's the evidence of plan there's nothing else to corroborate that so even if the defendant saying and committing the time when you commit a robbery and again i suggest that's misinterpreting that statement the victim's last money on him in his wallet not like it's secret away somewhere and he still has money in his wallet when the police find him it's pretty thin that this was a plan to commit a robbery versus taft i mean it's i think the evidence is overwhelming that the defendant was surprised by what ended up happening here that he's expecting there to be a drug deal because that's what they plan to deal and he said pills shows up and for i get no reason that's clear from the crime scene examiner maybe it was magical about the blood on the front seat and if there was no voice in blood on the passenger side front seat that would tend to suggest that someone was in that off the victim you know as he's sitting there and bleeding on the defendant said he got out of the car i mean it's just a matter to get out of the car right at what exact point and you're not sure how that affects whether this was supposed to be that rivalry between it doesn't make a big difference in terms of what was the planned and intended crime here and addition to the intense issue we've also argued that there wasn't a substantial step now that i think the state's relying on taking down to this location as a substantial staff and knowing that calls has come to this location but again it's wholly consistent with an intent to commit that versus an intent to commit a robbery that again there's no evidence of any demand for money which might be construed as a substantial stab the defendant's not armed he doesn't even efforts to conceal his identity other people know that he's going to be the person with the victim on this night after this time that he's supposed to be arranging a drug deal you know including the defendant's attorney and victims and then the defendant didn't even take the money after zelda shot so wow well hells overheard this and said you know let's go rob him so then that point then the defendant gets picked up by zero and wrexham to go to this isolated alley in the middle of nowhere knowing the pills is following him if they just wanted to do a swindle giving him ditch weed in return for money that could have been done right where they were there was no reason to drive to an isolated area that's why the people at home are argue that the substantial step that the defendant took was to get said there never was an intent obviously to go to the weed man that was used as an excuse he tells when you gotta drive me do we man's house we gotta wait a few months for the weed man that's to get zero to drive away from the area and go to an isolated area where there's nobody else was the person that was going to have the actual physical product i mean it the man we thing is it's a red herring it didn't exist at the time this crime was planned and done at the time finding that he is saying all along that he you know why would he be playing a rivalry when he's the one with the earth that he knows he's with it seems that if we're talking about as for the issue of why they would go to the location believe me if it was just going to be a trivial white and they do that where they were i mean they were sucking given junk you know they don't want to look like it's the defendant and buddies giving this guy jump they want to put the son  plan that he's selling the bad quality whether it's even pot or not they want this to be on someone else so that when zonal finds out what he really thought isn't worth anything he's not back after the you don't have any suggestion that defendant was aware that there was going to be a gun that he planned that you know killed would bring in a gun to the location i mean that tells if the defense is going to be accountable for what causes doing there has to be some intent to do the same thing that kills is doing and that's not here because there is no evidence that the defendant ever was aware that a gun was going to be brought to the scene by pills even at this location the taken two there's no dispute that this is where this is a lot of speculation and no evidence that he had anything to tell us who's coming here with a gun and then he's going to shoot just walk up and shoot and even if this was a plan to do a robbery which the evidence doesn't suggest those  kind of going wrong here walking out just firing a shot at the defendant startled he's not expecting this this isn't the plan the plan is to do a drug deal to give him john to get his money everybody on deal though the defendant sisters knows and in the end they have no reason than to suspect the defendant had done something wrong if this goes off this plan and it was planned as that was not planned as a robbery  sophistication to kind of mineral are you back off of it because if i admit that there was an attempted robbery i'm guilty of felony murder but if i back off and say well it's just a plan to do a drug dealer a theft in the manner not responsible seems implausible to me in this to suggest he would know that there were a difference between admitting a variety of different crimes and your level of responsibility for the ultimate act which i think you have to think to book by the states argue that o he realized he said too much and came off it i mean i think what we end up with here it is the defendant very consistently repeating during the statement it was a plan for a drug deal to was shot him i don't know why that was not the plan