and was provided to the person who was supposed to actually do have a different person by mark well it's not actually the weapon that is used on the thirty first but the court actually indicated  and lead the jury into because the jury for the found the thing with the weapon at some point what efficient but it leaves open the cases in california cases there's the didn't difference between giving direct instructions to the jury and then the jury and the jury never indicating any problem with someone argues on a instructions as a whole and i think that's particularly important in a case like this where you have a lot of evidence a complicated fact pattern a jury that wants clarification of the instruction quite reasonably says take another look here's where here is where this concept is going to take a look at it the jury continues to say well wait a minute does he have to aid and abet on the day of the killing and you know in the trial court and the parties i think they say well ok we've got to proceed carefully here because you know that everybody's on potentially thin ice here when we start straying into answer responding to injuries questions and so after argument lengthy argument trying to answer the jury's questions fully they do is you responses the outward i should say issues of response which no never has been a inaccurate but only incomplete but it is a complete response because the jury does not ask about the intense question that is now being raised here in this court what the jury asks about is really hard to know what to make of these notes at the end of the day as far as how much meaning they have and what securely what constitutional significance they should have if any i would submit that the inference is we can draw our very limited about intent and they all and i think that petitioners representation of them i just i disagree with them they're very concerned to the extent you can draw any inference that they seem to be concerned with  is must didn't do anything didn't even talk to these guys on the day of the killing can he still be guilty of aiding and abetting the murder and of course the short answer to that question is ye he doesn't want to be there but the trial courts as well there are limits on that and the limits are the aiding and abetting has to have some relationship to the crime that is committed they don't go into a discussion of intent because the jury doesn't ask about it and i think that's i think just rereading what the questions are and we don't have the text of most of the questions but nevertheless that's the record that i think motivations of one of the conspirators chips in the answer is no i mean i have looked and looked and i have not found a case where they where any such holding is in any california case but we do have is cases where there are multiple victims and those are the cases cited by petitioner in the opening and reply breeze multiple victims is a different under california law that has a different weight as far as how many crimes are occurring how many great significance from the fact that the jury found not true the special circumstance that monster killed or aided and abetted the killing in retaliation for his testimony  perhaps we have an inconsistent verdict we don't know what we have but what we do have is a jury that is instructed that if it has to find any special circumstance true as they did he now you know almost twenty years later we can look back and say well maybe the testimony changed things maybe they really weren't thinking about it now it's a testimony happened everyone said well i don't want to be a part criminal law doesn't work that way if you say that a plan in motion to kill somebody and you are an active participant and you were providing a weapon and you were recruiting people into the plan it's not enough under california law to just say you know i don't i don't particularly care anymore if that happened you have aided and abetted the murder with the intent that the murder be carried out happen what do you do and i'm not aware of any case law on the point frankly perhaps this doesn't happen much regrettably but be that as it makes i would imagine that the series would be something like withdraw from a conspiracy and you have to take some affirmative steps to prevent the crime from happening and certainly the the discussion between the parties trial kind of embodied that same in aiding and abetting can you withdraw from that i guess the real frank answer is i don't know because i don't think that question's been answered in california i don't know and of course bring  at the instructions as a whole it really is important to know that jury does have that intent requirement in front of them and they do not express confusion about it the trial court really impressively i  think tries to give full responses and there's a lot of the sides in the in the various arguments among the parties where various people say look we have to be careful not to try and read too much into their question because we don't want to intrude on their deliberative process and so everyone i think agrees that the questions need to be carefully crafted narrowly tailored to be responsive but not at its loreal izing  that's a delicate balance to strike and i think the trial court hit it exactly right here by responding to the questions that are asked i have to peripheral questions more simple issue oh well i think you know as is not uncommon on a few appellate review process it's sort of become simpler i think now i think that the attorney handling observation was it takes a long time to try the same case when you have more than one jury impaneled yeah i think you're right i mean it does complicate matters because that i mean it's a long time but it's it's it's a lot of evidence i mean it's it's not it's no small matter i think to sort through that i'd i would be relevant to this claim but i think it would concern us all if they came back in a couple of days and sa yeah we know we had months and months of testimony but we've triggered so you know they're probably they're going through the instructions paying attention to the evidence and try to make sense of concepts which are probably counter intuitive coming in  asking questions asking questions and getting accurate responses to those questions and continuing to try and sort out what the facts are and how the questions are going to result it's exactly what we want yuri's to do and just you know i don't want to be bother and we've all seen that on appeal where judges act like that like i know i don't want now what happens or even have a trial court doing the right thing giving accurate and complete response that she did a good