sentenced to eight years incarceration he was acquitted at the same trial of aggravated discharge of a firearm is raise three issues on appeal today and could be focusing on the second issue involving an improper jury instruction if we have final circle back around to the first issue involving the state's use of hearsay statements and if you're honest having questions about the third issue involving a critical hearing i'm happy to answer them the gist of the instruction issued was that the unfortunately that one charge the fence was also unlawful use of a weapon by a felon this time allegedly committed about us who weeks before the charged incident a fact that the state that roost in order to tender i p i three defendant was not guilty of committing a crime or nearly because the charging instrument had the wrong date on it so for example they charging instrument charges something that happened on december fourteenth and a police officer instruction automatically or in every case now struction is only to be given when there is actually a variance in the croods what money coming notes on the i p i call the date alleged presentment evidence to the grand jury and that man jury took that evidence and returned an indictment alleging in the incident on the summer fourteen all the state's evidence a trial related to an incident that occurred in the early morning hours of waived any constructive possession argument they withdrew the constructive possession instruction because the prosecutor in the case felt the instruction was confusing to juries she said she never liked this instruction she agreed with the judge that this was an actual possession case consequently in order for the state to convict mr turner and to sustain the conviction now they have to show possessions and again it's not enough because the state limited itself on this question it's not enough to show constructive if there is no varies the state is not entitled to the instruction now the state argued that the instructions conference that this was an ongoing or continuous possession that makes little sense for the standard is surprise it's not there is a difference between being surprised and being misled in this case the defense attorney was aware of trying the statement it was for discovery i can't say that she was incident and frankly i don't think that it's credible to suggest that anyone else would have been prepared for a full trial on the prior possession had we been in the same reasonable to argue for example that this individual finds this gun in an unsafe place in an unsafe states that is better for that person to not analogous to the situation that cal simple b of turner was being put on trial for and so all that you know the defense that is applicable to december fourteen it's clearly not applicable to me squire whether that it was and we don't know again because we don't have any details except that he admitted that he had found it  and again that the quote there is not yet is not seated she sort of get into the nuance on that prior possession the point is that it is it is a different factual scenario than what we were dealing or what counsel thought she was dealing with the trial there any other questions i'll move on to the the hearsay issue the question investigation doctrine are exceptions to the hearsay rule of wiles officers to testify during an investigation including to the existence of conversations that they had read during that investigation and what they did in response to those conversations with the law does not allow them to get into the contents of those conversations thank you thank you flora to the extent that such information comes and it comes in for the limited purpose of explaining the course of the investigation and not to the truth of the matter asserted both of those principles were violated here first the alleged victim who should deem her statement that turner shot in her got in front of the jury during the officers testimony conversation her demeanor is set wrong and then your response to that conversation went to a certain apartment that's never limit of what the law allows them to testify to these are the that statement sprightly december fourteenth his fingerprints would be on it and he knew the gun bill kreutzmann cartridges defendant had a key to use mother hazel try hers apartment defendant was standing beside the drawer where the gun was found in his apartment and hazel testified that she goes into that specific drawer every day and the gun was not there when she went to bed and that the night before the december fourteenth finding the defendant is a people are not required to prove that a crime was committed on a specific in our particular date and defense trial counsel specifically denied any unfair surprise from people's requests for a three point one and the record shows that when it's counsel is fully to show the course of the police investigation and his brief defendant argued that police cannot testify test i love the substance of conversations but our supreme court william stated the determination of whether the statement closing argument is the state was arguing that this was not a case of mistaken identification and in response the defense counsel's argument worry allege that dean was acting to police that the people argued that dean was hysterical so that portion of the argument dealt with the aggravated discharge rather than the session of the weapon nek years people do know this is simply not invited there are i mean there is everything that counsel suggested was brought out by defense counsel was first brought out by the s and they risk inviting that era that has already occurred by responding to a trial if that is the wrong then then there is no wa  the argument seems to stop with a certain point so for example with the hearsay argument there work is it is absolutely true  these things they can talk about the course of their investigation but there are limits to those rules even to the extent that that they're being reviewed that that the testimony is being used in