without authorisation that that your client intern without authorization group are the things you're talking about do they go more to the way you know how you weigh it is it credible it's just that this one knocked out window whoever is in the house look out as if they were going to come back out there knowing either the record suggests that it was the same window it seemed that the officers were standing at different corners of the house and so there was no evidence that burglary the state could not have done so absent the hearsay statements in this case the first statement said issue where the officers statements as to the burglary in progress a police officer may testify regarding th evidence and you should consider it just as you would any other evidence number two you are not required to leave your commonsense outside the door what do we have while we have a call of a burglary in progress what is a burglary me he lives at nineteen zero seven it was more along the lines of i spoke with butts who lives at nineteen zero seven east where child isn't there a difference there mean we're in a small community and people know sometimes where other people personal knowledge and explain the foundation for that knowledge but because counsel didn't attract a certain hearsay grounds there was no the state didn't have the ability to actually explain whether officer how he had knowledge of the fact that mr  drawing place of another but in this case it was officer how the statement they did establish that fact and without that statement the state would not have been able to prove him guilty the third issue a and that is exactly what officer i would say there's no evidence in the record that he could have possibly known where the jewelry boxes were originally located and where the kind case was originally located because he conceded the kidnapping that residen house and you see a window pane knocked out what is your first thought oh maybe something's going on over there they may not but you go really check it out you not going the door no one answers go around to that window you see someone running around inside it tries to stay for another window then you say hey stop what are you doing and then he ends up playing what is your common sense to duction about it clearly even if you know your neighbor or not there's probably something illegal that's going on so you call the police that's pretty much the facts of this case is this case your honor counsel argues that the state failed to prove its finding guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on basically every element in this case which the overwhelming evidence clearly contradicts that argument the state also wants to point towards  defense counsel statements at the motion the direct verdict motion at trial court while the state's position of the defense counsel conceded that respondent committed to the lesser offense of criminal trespass property which that would make defendants arcturus find its arguments on appeal regarding entering the drawing place of another without authority forfeited because the lesser offense of criminal trespass property are those two as entering the duel in place of another without authority is there evidence that supported that finding if you're right you mentioned that your position is that was there evidence within that so called concession aside what ambience was presented that s well as the trial court noted a lot of this evidence was circumstantial evidence most notably the officer testified that he spoke with the victim the owner of the residence who was mainly talked to after the defeat the respondent was in custody so that along with all the circumstantial evidence which my hypothetical someone addressed showed that the respondent the not have the authority did not have the authority to be in the drawing at all and so therefore when he entered he did not have any authority yes counsel makes a point there was no explicit testimony that he was not authorized to be in there but the evidence presented at trial is overwhelming in regards to all these elements including that without authority i think defendant's own flight from the residence shows his consciousness of guilt that he knows he wasn't supposed to be there if you're in your own house and you see officers coming to your house knocking on the door you don't answer and they pull their weapons on you i think most people's instincts at that point would be hey this is my house i'm i'm allowed to be here reza defended the opposite and they attempted to run which yes john it's unfortunate in this case the homeowner did not test five believe there was he was planning on testifying that something came up the last last minute and he could not but the state's position is the state i'm not sure your honor the state's position is that the evidence in this case including the circumstantial evidence shows that he was without authority to enter the residence going forward the intent to commit a fast that was also officer still testified that the house looked as if it was rubbish through and the trial court's on finding it stated gee maybe mr buss lived that way so he was considering he didn't even consider that th e items may have been originally look at it here here's just considering based on the point of house that maybe that's how he lived but obviously the trucker protected because if you have a jury cases and gun cases scattered all over recollection i thought was not so we don't know if he was inside the house outside the house if he came home later if a neighbor called him we don't know any of that that's not your fault you're the one that has to answer for it  but all that's missing from the state's case agree the state agrees to that your honor regarding the an effective assistance of counsel claim state contends that none of these statements that counsel letters were hearsay were actually hear say that this past radio message and burning a two thousand and eleven opinion from this court your honor stated that the content of a police radio message is not hearsay at that if it is offered for the limited purpose of explaining the reason and manner in which the police conduct their investigation and counsel does point but the trial court somewhat relied on that and its finding but the state the state's position is that the way the trial court phrase it only put it this way even if the trial court hadn't stated said that statement and it wasn't even admitted the overwhelming evidence he could have easily just to sa the police were dispatched to this residence and then say that all the other circumstantial evidence and that would have still made the implication circumstantially that there was a residential burglary that occurred i think this error was ultimately harmless as well so seven he's fairchild this is clearly not hearsay as justice for the white stated it was personal knowledge it goes more towards the weight of the evidence and not admissibility similar to the locations of the items in their original locations it was not hearsay it did come out on cross examination that officer in fact had not previously been an owner's home so it points towards the inference maybe the officer was not aware of the original location but again that's not admissible if you're hearsay purposes that's for the way to approach credibility of the off officers testimony so as a result none of these statements were here saying the council's failure to object or not affect the assistance of coun