these both of these officers testified that mr fire did not personally provide them with information about acts that that does not preclude the fact that mr fire could have report of the accident within thirty minutes i phoning either the sheriff's office or the city of newark police department that was also a close eye department and provide information to any other officer  on the telephone which he was talking to his system for a few seconds in a very short conversation but in the thirty minute time he could have also called and reported the accident because the judge failed to give this instruction the jury was never given the third option the judge weed the evidence when deciding whether or not to give in shops and they just said that d by other officers or even contained in a police report that's the jury could have concluded that mr fired general court access to another officer or even another police department within the human rights but they were not given that option to the court's words were not directed at the degree or gravity of this to fires contact but only about the fact of the victims that nights the court also found an aggravating factor that mr fire caused or threaten serious harm with regard to this factor the quite sad at threatening serious harm because people have to figure out what happened here this presumably means that the police had to investigate that that's not that is not to harm the police the police's job is to investigate an accident and the nature of this of facts failing to report her automatically means that there is going to be some investigation is not a harm to the police or to the victims that investigation had to be done in order to figure out what happen fact that mr fire may have sobered up and hauled his friends prior to arm after the accident and that's why you didn't report it there was no evidence of this on the record that mr fire had been drinking at all and in fact counsel pointed out the fact that there was no evidence of this and yet the court still sad that he could not rule out that mr fire could have been hiding something additionally in this case there was an abundance of mitigating evidence some of which the court did not fully consider and some of which the court misconstrued for example mr fire was employed and had reconstruction for a year and a half prior to the court said that this not working business was disturbing to however mr fire was working and the courts insinuation that mr fire wasn't working shows  had plenty of opportunities to do so and be meaningful and on said that mr fire lacked a corpus in life this is not supported by the evidence mr fire is only twenty four years old at the time of the acts that and he did have a job albeit it was not full time but he was working and he showed up to work when i read he was supposed to as his employer had told the court additionally the court rely on that deterrence factor adds in a reason for increasing the penalty however the legislature has ruled that the minimum four y would be sufficient to punish mr fire in this case and the reasons that the court relied on for increasing at increasing the survivors and hence were either inherited many fans or they were not supported by the  criminal history it referred to it said he had no significant role history but then went on to discuss his school records and his disciplinary history in school which are very different things and it wasn't clear whether the court was actually relying on his criminal why this accident happened and why he didn't report it but the evidence is that that's the case the issue on whether or not there's a lesser included offense here  the statute fines three second offense now this idea that he's entitled to a lesser included offense because maybe he reported it well isn't that in the of whom could only testify as to their person lack of personal interaction with mr fire if you knock or they did not present any evidence from the police department that sells or even about the lack of records from the police department or any phone records or anything in the context of saying that there was no evidence of this council was not asking the court to consider whether or not there was intoxicated and he was pointing out the fact that that there was no evidence of that in this case and he was recently i asking the other reason that mr fire in thirty minutes and he had previously discussed whether or not mr fire was calling friends or whether mr fire was still working on those things were not supported by rocker and the court did in fact