but you're in the neighborhood think  counts for the world when those conditions were introduced extraneous impermissible information was transmitted to the jury about the circumstances of those present cases cost therefore asked that this court remand for new and separate trials can regarding specifically be threatening a public official case that the state or the trial of the facts seem to truly understand the elements of the offense when such a claim is made against the sworn peace officer there are additional elements that state must prove concern all the counts against mr cox this courtroom in for a new trial because cox's counsel was so effective that she actually proved the state's case on artificial criminal now the statements brief makes no argument on the deficiency of counsel's performance and this weapons mr cox he provided that information in the statement to police and by calling mr charles and counsel open the door to questioning on that issue and the state's later reliance upon it closing arguments this information was highly prejudicial it new trial and that set from armitage will criminal trying to those issues that concern specifically he threatening a public official count when such a charge concerns a sworn peace officer the state must not only was in a reasonable apprehension of harm i mean after himself her member of his family but also that the threat contains specific facts indicative of a unique threat to the person or family of the officer rather than simply a threat of generalized harm state failed to prove these elements and the jury was never instructed on its elements first regarding proof coxon your specific facts about these officers that you could possibly have conveyed to create a unique threat in fact the state only proved that one of the two officers even had a wife and children for cops to threaten cots also indicated that he would kill you all he was in the jail that's exactly the sort of generalized threat statute takes out of a threatening public official conviction this is obviously generalized far more innocuous than the kind specific threat that other courts have held meet the statute for instance in the hill case where the defendant provided to provide details about where the officers lived at that she was requirement but a reasonable apprehension of future harm is in the scenario i just presented where threat was made generally to harm you on the wall from your wife and children from the pressure to a jail cell a lot on enough not to state the proposed instruction that takes that factual determination out of the jury's hands this is especially important where as i've argued earlier there is virtually no proof of these two elements for these reasons each of cau convictions were undermined the trial through ineffectiveness insufficiency another trial or hair cuts therefore requested this court reversed his threaten the public official conviction and remain for the trial  criminal it would affect a conviction because there was prejudice both ways it was not simply the information about here in potential criminal case prejudice the threatening case it certainly did and that's the prior conviction information but the threatening case also prejudiced the our individual criminal case and included the extraneous information about an incident that was entirely separate that occurred later in the evening at the jail it was an incident that occurred during the elements of the fans of artificial criminal the information that was introduced about those prior convictions also requires reversal in terms of its will criminal count there's nothing regular about including information about the complainants in the case about the recommendations for drug treatment for m the facts and circumstances of those cases rather than simply sending back the fact that mr cox had prior convictions for burglary all of that information was passed to the jury the state argued for the proof of those prior crimes it's difficult to conceive how the jury would have reached the conviction had that information not been transmitted to them true very briefly to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim the state did not