very clear that the state has to prove that the nature of my question is how is that the investigation comes first before you can determine what the nature of the injury is and if  defendant does not stick around long enough to investigate how can they possibly determine the nature of the injury that would leave her out of the race the question over whether defendant must know that that there are other drivers injured potentially innocent conduct as a felony that some knowledge of the injury on behalf of the defendant is needed but what is clear under the current model chipped your lawn or not is that it has to be some testimony as to the nature of the injury i tself was this the kind of injury one which one had to be rushed to the hospital right away and unfortunately this case the state simply failed to bring that out there was no to sick medical diagnosis that would say what the injury to mr decker actually was even at the scene shortly after the accident mr decker was not even stunned by his own testimony he was nearly angry he was ambulatory he walked over to the other vehicle he spoke to the driver he pulled out a cell phone all the while his testimony was that he was inference that mr decker would have been worse off had he not been rushed to the hospital right away and if we use simply a some eight cylinder interject because i i think i understand the scope of your argument but i don't think you've addressed justices all justice halls  then there needs to be some showing that the that a defendant must have known that the suit to bring somebody to the hospital what we want to avoid is the situation where you know a part of a party with a hidden injury simply represents to a defendant after an accident that that he's not injured at all and doesn't need to go to the hospital and then when when interest discovered later on suddenly the perp is suddenly the driver has committed a felony because he didn't call an ambulance  your honor and let's look at the rights that are at stake when a when and when the court is making a decision as to whether to appoint interpret these a right to confront witnesses to even be present a court to and  hearing where the defense of variability to understand the language is what is that issue further your honour's while while under united states be chronic it's automatic reversible error because house was it's also clear that the court of use its discretion in denying mr down interpret this is not a case like those where and interpret isn't really an issue for one witness what's at issue here is what mr dems abilit even when he's trying to explain the circumstances of this rest is even they give tickets paper the license they can read then either when he's asked when he's asked about the date of a particular mug shot an issue that was up in point in a controversy and in trial his testimony is sir i've been in work with my wife probably they took me a hundred times same officer this is the same officer took me they take picture my hundred times and that's what the court reporter wrote managed to construe out of his testimony we also know that the parties in the anybody had forced him to give up his right to counsel mr dunne said something like yes you know representing the court at that point should have been wired as you know as to whether as to whether counsel was ineffective before unself representation of one point because he believed interpreter was necessary to do so in the court's own words how can you represent yourself if you can't read english there's simply no new facts that were learned by the court that would that would have let it change its mind of the people the state of illinois twenty times this defendant was before the court twenty eight times the court had an opportunity to view him in determining whether he needed an interpreter or not at one point somebody mentioned the possibility that he might need the interpreter but he had over the course of twenty eight times the court determined he did not if you look at the entire record is pretty clear he did not need an interpreter he knew exactly what was going on here  remember it is is he capable of understanding english language and he's a capable expressing himself in the english language he doesn't have to be perfect at it through our you know opponent speaks to the difference between the to participating in his defense in this case which is the constitutional issue that he is raising and he participated and fully if you look through his testimony at trial he did not have any trouble expressing himself on direct examination the only time that he actually expressing himself was when he was confronted with something i cross examines cross examination the challenge the validity of what he said on direct examination he participate in this defense fully he was capable of understanding the english language and capable of expressing himself the trial attorney who represented him through many of the pretrial proceedings answer the trial never indicated the court in any way shape or form issue with judge and really any point apparently i guess you should because he didn't have any trouble with them he was having troubles of communicating with them and developing a defense certainly council would have raised that with the court consul certainly is presume to know what his responsibilities are and if you can't develop a defense with your defendant well then you better raise that to the court at one point also this court question the stiffened extensively about whether he should proceed pro se there while again not perfect but that's not the standard is he capable of understanding is he capable of expressing himself and is he able to participate in a defense and this court determined that his understanding of english language was good enough to represent himself is or slightly different nuance or approach the judge generally might have taken he had trying to assure for himself that the defendant understood the ramifications of proceeding pro se in this matter as opposed to the issue of analyzing and first instance whether to proceed pro se sure and i believe without obviously having that issue been briefed or raised that based on the questions to ask the staff and the extensive conversation and defendant's own understanding of the legal system that the judge did a fine job again remember that to find someone who's up there saying this is important i can't receive three hundred sixty five days in jail for somebody who doesn't understand the english language is bringing that up to the court he certainly understood the english language when the victim in this case told him i called the police he certainly understood the language that so my concern capable of understanding and expressing himself and where was that in the record on this well i believe that there were a couple of court appearance this and actually in front of a couple of separate judges where somebody might have said gee he might mean interpreter or do you think you need an interpreter but over the course of time as they got to know this to find it through repeated appearances in the court room they  seems perfectly fine they don't have to do anything and more decent guy well it's not as if everybody who comes in the courtroom you need to do this analysis if you seem to be expressing yourself and understanding everything will it was not perfect english but he certainly was getting his point across he certainly got his point across and and the behavior of the defendant is what interfered with the proceedings not his inability to express himself in english language or understand english language counsel talks about the lack of evidence that the victim required immediate medical treatment there was plenty of up in a city needed immediate medical treatment he was taken to the hospital he a ambulance he remained there for thirteen fourteen hours he had a cat scan he had an m r i he had muscle pain along his spine he remained in a neck brace for through three weeks he missed over two weeks of worry running back in for one of the cars right after the accident he's on the cell phone reporting his own accident no evidence that he was running back and forth and he being the good samaritan when all that check on the defendant he said here record is different hurt i called nine one one and what is the defendant do between the accident and the time he took off ninety seconds to two minutes takes off down the street and drives down the sidewalk  professional treatment in a medical facility or doctor's office this would be eleven for one piece is correct and that's exactly what happened here i mean now even itself suggests that it doesn't need to be so egregious that you can't get yourself to the doctor it's just that you received medical treatment the statue itself includes a requirement that the defendant carry or make arrangements to carry that person to physician accident calling and the entering getting the ambulance here something the defendant never did which the defendant should have done in this case that those defendants shot is mere fact that it's like the victim was the one to do everything the defendant was supposed to do in this case  defendant did nothing but drive down the street i mean the purpose of this is to encourage people who are causing these accidents check out what's going on give your name give me your number find out if they need help and we don't even have any attempt by the defendant in this case all he did was take off down the sidewalk and you pointed in the case that the fact that the injuries were not that severe requiring immediate attention and fear indicate