our next case for today is case number four fifteen zero zero or three people with a little noise versus anthony stannis in for the appellant we have mr ryan and for the i believe this earth this is that  and touch upon arguments one through three and stand on the press to try to must answer any questions general background is after he was charged in this case with one count of possession of a weapon by felony two counts of resisting arrest went to a the backdrop was that in response to an anonymous nine one one call police officers went to a place called random court whereupon they see someone who takes off running from them they chase him to anthony and eventually catch him they backtrack and long the area of the ground in this high crime area they find a gun their first argument is that this week isn't this week evidence is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt because there's no link any weather conditions that would explain to ration prints was there evidence that the gun was actually located in his flight it was near the passage which was a lot it was near along the path where the flight  public area yes and so you have these buildings kind of like duplex is i guess maybe the best way to know and so you have a gate area sidewalk area being a unit community and that the defendant ray and the sidewalk in the completely different between two there were there was one unit in common so here's a unit the officers coming up this side and the defendant is coming up on this side is that right you are actually do not know the answer to that well kind of specific to the specific details but james i do know that they saw him when the officer pulls up a car he sees and they took off running so he goes after him in that direction of he does the officer does say that he did lose sight of anthony for a brief moment or two and perhaps you know of course the state's theory would be that's when the gun would have been discarded and that he was apparently wasn't carrying i so we have the gun and you're the area of the chase and we have flight but it's a we've asked that you take the conviction out of the other but in the alternative this court finds that that evidence at least meets the bare minimum of rational standard his argument taking arguments two and three together scissors he'd be substantially overlap that under any standard and he was denied a fair trial by both the double hearsay improper use of that hearsay substantive witness after us there's a pretrial objection to getting this double hearsay and because you have what the caller called just after tells officer graves counsel objects before trial and says this is hearsay the shouldn't come in and it's also not necessary to prove why they chased him because headlong flight would give you reason for suspicion so the police had every right to chase him upon him running away and the state says what sound seems like your say to me into the states is what we would be offering it to show that an individual who met here is the first district justice shredded in two thousand and eleven citing cameron as i've had occasion there several times but does seem to be getting into the psyche of trial judges or counsel a why the police did what they did and exclude unduly prejudicial testimony the jury might reasonably misused the term defendant skill such as identification by third parties that never  explanation by the prosecution that he or she is only offering the testimony show i also did what they did should that be the end of the discussion but we have no real discussion following cameron here we have some musing about it but it seems to me going back now twenty years is trial stuff to the extent the police need explanation this case the prosecutors and could have agreed to have the officer a camera hearing i have not your on yours this is nineteen eighty nine decision of this court cited several times in decisions i wrote several times where justice wil but at least the prosecutor here warranted that it wasn't going to be used to show that an individual met this description with a firearm and so it wasn't supposed to be admitted for that purpose at all and yet that's even if you know even officer graves testimony did you say you know there's a guy brennan court armed with a gun says the dispatcher did you see an individual that the general description of the individual you were looking for yes and they're coming opening right into the off the back closing argument gets to brandon court quote he saw an individual who matched the description given of the individual at the firearm that person was the defendant during the bottle he was quote uncontroverted that the defendant matched the description of the man with the gun and then something similar almost the last thing that the not a difficult concept either given that it's just you don't you it's not going to get into show why they did something but you don't bring in the substance of the of the hearsay at any stage and they were if there was any even any doubt that the jury here actually considered the nine one one call we have only to consider the jury's first note which says we're unanimous on the resisting charges what if we're not unanimous on the gun charge what happens that and can we see the nine one one transcript so they're saying basically they're now go down to weighing only that gun and they want to know more details about the nine one one transcript because they think they should consider that in determining whether mr sent us is the guy with the gun the dispatch you know in this close case consider would be correct the jury did nothing wrong in violation of their instructions they would know and this limiting would have a play believe occurred off the record when the state only offered it for the limited person purpose that was pretrial so your honour's under any standard this is before the jury was primarily circumstantial in nature however that is sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt and and the court's role here today is more of a more of the local sense looking at quality control can you follow the evidence here when looking at the light most favorable to the prosecution in a way that leads to a rational logical outcome it is not about me examining the evidence but just making sure that the jury had sufficient evidence from which they could reach this reasonable conclusion even if the court might feel that it would have reached a different conclusion and in this particular instance there is a clear chain of evidence here leading to a finding that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to the charge for possession of a weapon by a felon the police showed up on a report that there was an individual with a weapon in the area the defendant immediately began trying to spite being asked by the police officers to stop the police officers testimony was that there were no other individuals in the area they came to their attention in the same manner now was it that definitive or wasn't it more like i don't recall anybody else being out there i believe the exact testimony was somewhat equivocal in that when the detective was asked were there other people in the area his initial statement was i was focused on the defendant but then he answered my understanding is that the officer who pulled up in first observed him cause the defendant to take off running that he ran up the sidewalk between units forty nine and fifty that the defendant took off and actually ray and between units fifty one in fifty two which would explain why there was a point in time where the officer could not see him because the officer would have  woods between them as they ran up a parallel basically track and so the gun is found near the area between in the parking lot near the area between forty nine and fifty which is the path of the officer given the defendant graham between fifty one and fifty two what evidence is there that the defendant was ever in the area where a good gun was located yes your honor and that on the whole is consistent with my understanding of the record as well retraced his path they retrace the defendant's path or the officers had your honor it's my understanding from the record in the testimony of the officers that they knew the path he had taken obviously they were aware which buildings here to run through because they testified to that fact and then they retraced with the new his steps to be again it's my understanding that that gate in the fence created a bottleneck so while there were many paths to get to the gate there was only one path through it but no officer observed the defendant with the weapon and observed the defendant drop the weapon you have an officer running parallel to him i'm having difficulty understanding how that officer would not have seen him drop the weapon with the weapon because basically what you're saying is the defendant ran between fifty one and fifty two then turned left ran past fifty one ran past fifty climbed over the gate or reading through the gate and dropped the gun in the parking lot all while supposedly this officer who's running parallel to him sees not at this you know i think there might be many possible explanations for either officer did not see that perhaps he watched going because items that particular fact alone may not have been enough for a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt we're looking at all of the factors in conjunction with each other so weapon he found that it had been recently dropped there that as well as the testimony that there were no other individuals who came to the police officers it creates a very reasonable conclusion by the jury that there was sufficient evidence here to convict the other although at this point in time i am not certain that the officers when they testify completely ruled out the presence of other possible but i believe my recollection of the testimony was that the officer jury when viewing the evidence in the light to show for the jury to come to this particular conclusion the other aspects that defense counsel spoke about was the testimony and whether or not this was in permissible hearsay or if the testimony regarding the nine one one tapes bell under the investigatory procedure exception to the general hearsay rules and the concerns about the confrontation here it is helpful to look at the actual substance of the nine one one call the ruling  and then the testimony heard by that yury the actual nine one one call with much more detail than what the jury heard you actually provided a physical description of the defendant he was a black male wearing black clothing with braden hair matched the description of course the jury never heard and was never made aware of a more accurate description had been provided the only testimony the jury heard was that there was a report of a man with a gun they didn't food the attorney for the state to discuss what the evidence was presented at tri truck and we've talked about the possibility of limiting instruction clearly if the defendant had been asked for that in this particular case it would have been appropriate for the trial court to give it however the court did not with the argument have been improper at that point in time if counsel who believed it was exceeding the scope of that why that evidence was admitted it would have been appropriate for counsel to object and also in this case did not object and keeping in mind to the jury was not left without any instruction the for guards it's a view of what was told to wait during closing are the germ was properly instructed that argument is not evidence and that the jury should disregard any argument that was in conflict with were not consistent with it is reasonable here where the jury was properly instructed to conclude that the jury did indeed follow them and found and potentially to the extent that overstated that particular evidence and what the testimony was disregarded  and we do have some evidence that that is the likely outcome if the jury had taken the state's arguments to mean that a more detailed description at one point time had been given and that the defendant accurately matched that description one would think that the jury's deliberations would have been shorter in nature and they would have had fewer questions about what to do when it was clear they were having difficulty reaching a unanimous verdict on that particular issue when the trial court permitted this reference to the that they that the individual here matched the description given to the one caller why why why was let's go back to that point in time how was that necessary testimony was focused on there was a report of a man with a gun the reason i bring up the profits after all is because it makes the state's argument in closing consistent with that order so the state in closing did not exceed in the order possible way the trial court could have gone so the question how is it consistent with the judge's order to say he matched the description and with the gun from the nine one one call how is that consistent when not only did the judge say you can't intent but what it was are and that will always be the case argument which is and the question at the end of the day is did that somehow render this process on fair or obtain a result that was not otherwise going to be obtained in this particular instance were given as a result it is unlikely that this change the ultimate outcome of this case we can see from the jury's deliberations of they were very carefully considered that they struggled meticulous aspect of the charges against the defendant but yet they came to an animist verdict and one that they all when polls agreed to in front of the court so at the end of the day they all agreed to this particular verdict and believed it was appropriate  keeping that in mind just briefly this makes this case very different than the case cited by the defendant with regard to the investigatory procedure and when it is exceeded by the testimony given and that's the case of people be sure there  age height bill rates tattoos things that would allow a jury to say that was the person at fault here regardless of any other information here we don't have that here we need each piece of information to build on it in order to reach the conclusion that the defendant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a result in east's any single piece of evidence in and of itself is not overly prejudicial as a result the state would respectfully request that the court upholds the verdicts in this case counsel your honour's question about the gate at least this and this is from mr williams brief on page six a statement of fact the only opening in the fence is a gate between forty nine and fifty brandon court which the chase proceeded through in the page by twelve page twenty six so apparently that your honor is correct that this is the only gate and it's the one that was on the side where the officer was which even further weakens the state's case as the gun would have been presumably there already by you and we have the three times that they use it in the opening in the opening statement defense counsel i think her name is lindsay evans and i believe it's one of the prosecutor is one of them is his name noll but i don't know which one i believe there's more than one attorney named in the syria this was  anyway it was specifically offered to show you know you know you know as as a council point about jura and that there were more details there i think it's a distinction without a difference the investor hearsay exception doesn't generally doesn't lead in any substance at all and the conclusion that he matches that description is more or less tad's amount to saying you know you know five foot ten black guy with you know with a tattoo matches the description i'm not sure that there's much of a difference to be made between three details and the conclusion that would follow from the  groups i believe it was first with the first witness i the jury instructions here about arguments not being evidence would have done nothing to tell the jury you can't consider the nine one one any any substance of the nine one one call for anything other than why the police are there including the description of the gun those instructions have no logical tendency to damage to secure this area and truck should live here well they would have gotten the the general instruction arguments are not evidence they are they wouldn't have gotten a thing that would result that a jury or no evidence that they were told was offered for a limited purpose that's correct that's correct and finally as to counsel's point that the jury clearly didn't consider i would say that the jury first question actually completely