in an argument whine and issues related to the jury instructions but one of the questions on any of the issues raised a defendant has a fundamental right to be informed of the nature and cause criminal accusations against section one  of things st they argue that they had because these are on inter human remains how would we know who they were when the grand jury know who did specify was charged the beginning of august two thousand and nine the state overcharged they went too fast they could have had the names of the gravestones they could have waited because listed the names of the gravestones on that indictment they could have waited and listed virginia foster facts so that mr hicks could prepare his defense instead they were over charged with things they couldn't prove the other twenty two dollars of the other charges were dismissed because they weren't even applicable and the state ended up now in two of the charges because they couldn't prove those in those mclaren it would have been that easy for the state just list the names of the gravestones that they ultimately tried to prove at trial however they didn't they just use the general language of the statue leaving mr nice to have to defend one see that actually provided little if any guidance to the jury on the substance of one's defendants are entitled to have the jury instructed on any legally recognized and theory even if the proof is conflicting and there's only slight evidence upon wh the way you see the jury instructions the state would have to prove a negative that there are there was no lawful authority how would they do this how would they prove there was no logical authority by showing that don't mean there is no there was evidence of that and this isn't a reasonable doubt or men were asking the jury be instructed on these this is the trial court found them to be affirmative defenses are not affirmative defenses even the  jury instructions say that the only affirmative defenses here would be in section seven of the criminal code so whether there are elements of the offense or exemptions mr nix should have had the jury instruction  testified that when caylee would hit another casket were something while they were trying to dig a new grave terence would stab him and they would go to the office and they would try to figure out what to do when they were trying to move it and try to authority because there was testimony that some of them had become celebrities or that because of the poor conditions at the cemetery they would sink into the ground and sometimes need to be moved were white that there was certainly sufficient evidence to have the jury instructed would be which would be the descriptions of one see in fourteen point five but that without legal authority charging instrument and so therefore becomes an element of the offense like trespass if you have legal authority there is no  markers that were used to help a family find their loved ones within the cemetery are numbered that out through out at the map of the race they sent out eleven pictures of those mr nixon charged with ten or more gravestones and our defense counsel initially agreed to the court telling the jury that they had received all that evidence and the law he then thought about it and he said yes this was really confusing and if you the very very long trial he used the word marker was used as greystone as a mapping marker as a commemorative marker it was used repeatedly and in many different ways and the confusion which was clear and where the evidence of whether there was ten or more great strokes removed this became a critical definition that they needed to be aware of and the trap where it's not allowing the jury to be instructed that claim we don't need to prove who is over it we don't need to identify with the greystones are in the indictment itself the nature of the cause of a criminal a accusation were st to the crime committed not the manner in which  committed the purpose of the motion to dismiss is support tactic defendant against a subsequent charge as a later time and we know that's not an issue in this case to the compulsory jointer and speedy trial and we know that there was sufficient that seem very specific statute with very specific acts now the point about the bill of particulars aside from the fact that this is a sufficient indictment the bill particulars the it was instrumental here because it show was a finding of fact the for the for the jury in this case should also be noted that here in this case while the charging document originally started in september two thousand and three through july th of two thousand and nine the exactly what they were doing they know was criminal when they tried to hide it this indictment charges specific instances the civic crime the charges listed a finite number of years in one particular location specific location he was the dump truck driver he agreed for years to allow human remains while he spotted for mr daly and they crashed yesterday and that backhoe dug up all this additional information they have the information about the and and the response of the bill particulars yet they have to go to trial and the and the indictment itself has nothing except the statute and that that doesn't seem to be requirement that the indictment be more specific than the stare shit none whatsoever that is a bill particulars issue not a sufficient if the indictment age this did not stop the defendant it any way shape or there was that double stacking i watched out a couple of times there was no defense to the enormity oh well he was doing with killing towns and worries daily he next act that cemetery i don't know how much more specific you can get those are the look particular issues those are not sufficient and i should if you want to address the other arguments that's as far as the jury instructions are of course the supreme court rule for fifty one requires that the judge tender i p i instructions and here in this case there were i p i instructions which were in tender the judge in fact was very lenient and modified and provided one c language for the headstones only because there was some evidence that maybe had stones had been damaged or destroyed and things of that nature so that it was given to the liners there are pulling human remains out of great sites there dumping hundreds of people in the back there a dump area so the judge is quite lenient in tendering and altered i p i instruction what regarding the one c language in the jury properly found defendant is not exempt from that conduct due to the nature of the mountain of literal evidence before it and the testimony of all of the specific grave markers that were in fact necessary certainly the definitions of great stone in parker also i were within the abuse of discretion standard of this judge she did not abuse your discretion in refusing the greystone marker and it should be noted that defense counsel originally agreed with the prosecutor and the judge to tell the jury that you had the evidence continue to deliberate and it wasn't until that massive head into liver to the judge the defense counsel then said you know on  nd thought they needed confused about the definitions of these two things so we would like them to be those definitions pursuant to the dictionary to be sent back to the jury the judge said if it comes up again i'll entertain that and it never debt these are commonly referred to things they are not listed in the i p i for good reason because you don't really need them however i p i allotted for describes gravestones or other memorial or monuments or markers number that the prosecution in this case spent untold amounts of time with defense attorneys not because the indictment lacks specificity justice but on a bill little particulars issue the prosecutor actually says on the right heard i'm willing to try this case informally with defense counsel but what i don't want to do is have an exchange of paper going back and forth and attempt to narrow the scope of the full moon menace stock and discovery in this case but actually sat down with defense counsel and the lead detective in this case and held up for a while they were going to try who they were going to call what they were going to ask and even entertain the defense notions of what they would probably come up with the trial this was that i think case of epic cooperation this was not it sufficient indictment d removed more than ten or grave stones and morals america i mean this is not this is very general it's not ten or more picking up and moving and she's describing this is a very very vague very very general this is who says  especially is specific if you can get we know it's not it's just as specific as we can get because they have the names of the gravestones they could have put those in the indictment would have been simple the state also state tell him exactly what he's entitled to facts specified in the indictment that allow him to prepare and defense that's the law he's entitled to that the language of the statute is very general and let's not remember that terence next was not running the show here he was a low level employee he'd only been an employee a full time employee of the cemetary for two years there was a lot of evidence that every time he saw something not right happen he tried to stop it he would get mad but storm awkward refused to dump the truck everybody sort of agreed to that he was not the ringleader here he deserved what the bob requires in the indictment which is specificity the state had the specificity that it could have alleged they chose not to and because of the vastness it's because of the facets of this case that he was entitled to a more narrow