whether there was some i'm sorry yeah whether there was some evidence there some complexity of it when there's anything that needs to be believed they're just they're sort of real that's always for the jury to decide so it doesn't make sense to  so even if the trial court determines that the evidence is incredible and therefore says that's not evidence or is not some evidence or sufficient evidence you cannot refuse and here she kind of refusing struction correct there's actually a great so this is a longstanding fundamental principle a jury trials that when there's some conflicting evidence it doesn't really matter what the trial her believes it matters what serves so therefore it needs to the jury it's even assuming that i mean in this case the evidence was that the good at best he says he did slap him or something and he responded with a knife it's a right difference between some evidence and inferences that can be drawn from the evidence so for example the possibilities that you laid out for us you said here is what this is what we know this this is the of instructions being given in this context the word sufficiency of the evidence have no meaning at all sufficiency i mean some slight right back to i think just as calm or talked about the different nuances of the language i mean so the trial judge the appellate court no one at that point looks at the sufficiency of the evidence they look at whether there's larry gets home and that's exactly what this defendant did he was the only person with a deadly weapon the knife never left his hands there was no struggle for this knife in fact the victim had no defensive wounds three stab acting in self defense and gave the defendant the benefit of the trial court's discretion gave the defendant this gift of self defense and the manager a counterpart and reasonably so and second degree murder however the found there was absolutely no evidence to support involuntary manslaughter or second degree murder provocation the port made me think the findings that the evidence was on contradicted in fact overwhelming that there was one there was one weapon and it never left the defendant's hands and based on that the the the trial the jury did not receive those instructions because there was no  court recognizing the trial court's discretion affirmed that how do you reconcile the first finding but there was sufficient evidence of a punch to justify self defense instruction but the that same evidence was not terms what what shows that there's no evidence for involuntary manslaughter and second degree provocation and the fact that there was one weapon and the fact there was no struggle that the case that the council discussed leonard involve two men struggling over a gun there was no struggle of the night here in fact there's not a single case that counsel has relied on where a defendant held a knife in his hands all day stating his intent to kill the victim and then there was no struggle for that knife there's no case that that support or in using an expression that the standard here is abuse of discretion as as this court has always recognize the trial court has a unique role and stands in this unique position hearing all of the evidence and  of the circumstances in determining whether there is some slight credible evidence otherwise that the jury could receive every instruction the defendant asked for in fact in an effort in the case ever at this function and this court has repeatedly recognized that and given deference to trial courts terminations this issue of credibility is is exactly what the trial court is to is to decide in the totality of the circumstances of what's going on in that courtroom hearing and observing witnesses testified in people the jones the defendant multiple contradicting statements in court before court it's the trial court's role to do its job so that the jury can then do their job properly instructed and this court has recognized that repeatedly historically that that is that that is the standard of review and for good reason and in those cases the counsel relies on everett washington and locock they did nothing to change this deferential it's deferential standard of those cases applied only to one second degree murder with second degree and reasonably in self defense is the mandatory different work than would see things differently but but of lying on the trial courts you need and hearing and observing the evidence and affirming with that use of discretion standard your honors if there are that the with regard to giving instruction on provocation fear evidence was in very very very sketchy where no witnesses saw the fight started and there was conflicting evidence regarding whether the victim could make some based on all the evidence in the testimony and to observe the demeanor as federal court did find that there was some evidence that the defendant may have had the right to defend  that the trial court's exact words were the jury the jury might might be able to find based on this that there that there was something yes correct around the face punch of the knees which was the punch the counsel refers to in her recent he argued in her argument was testimony of charlotte davis before the grand jury where she was asked about how the fight began and said that it larry may have punched out and the rest of that quote is but what good did it do because the defendant was a hole in the knife so it's true we don't know what happened at the beginning when he first came when larry first came home with his bicycle but the absence of evidence is not evidence it was there was no evidence that these men were going to fight in fact the evidence and when there's and one when one person has a deadly weapon and one person is unarmed it's not an even fight that it's not a mutual fight and even if there had been a punch even if if there had been some start of this fight with the punch the the the reaction of this case does not involve an absence of evidence we have some evidence from charlotte davis who knew this couple very well that she thought that it might have started at the patch to me it seems to me it's not but also that she did not believe but there was enough evidence here which the jury a properly instructed jury might have found macdonald guilty of a lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter or the seconds very very patient and because therefore couldn't have been his theory a defense could not have been to it was no evidence and finally in people versus washington this court did not limit its standard of review i believe this part was trying to clarify i think years of use of deferential language it didn't explain i think it morning you both excused this time