so is it your position that if you do something in reaction to something that has occurred it's not intentional on mr mr freeman was specifically whether or not he intended that he saw he was i don't know scared of the fact that he all of a sense that you see didn't it sounds like he's making a choice to meet a fire again maybe for his own safety as you might argue but it doesn't sound like there's anything accidental or bad it just went off to different arguments with in that no errors occurred below state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self defense the defendant was not entitled to and there involuntary manslaughter instruction and the jury was properly admonished as a result the state is alternately requesting this court to affirm the trial court's judgment although opposing counsel focused on the nd argument initially i will just briefly go over the st because they somewhat overlap based on the way that i prepared them regarding the st argument the state's position as previously stated is it proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant the not act in self defense the finan argues the state failed to disprove any element of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt in the state disagrees here the state's evidence consisted of sixteen witnesses ranging from numerous police officers that ect is but dr who is also the medical expert defendant's fiance defendant's fiance son and the victim's girlfriend who had a very close potentially romantic relationship with the senate based on a text message regarding rubbing her down with baby lucia or some type of wilbraham the state also introduced over thirty exhibits including a video pictures of the crime scene pictures of the deceased victim text messages in other phone records in short this was a very large amount of evidence in the state did a great job of proving that defendant did not act in self defense most importantly in this case as your others have correctly noted is that defendant continually seems to downplay what occurred after the initial shot although the state believes defendant's point of view regarding how the initial shot occurred is somewhat unbelievable the following is even more unbelievable in objective early on reasonable as well just briefly go over the testimony again he said it he had a firearm in his vehicle to go collect the debt he then brainers the weapon when the victim was trying to open the car door different and then shot toward the victim when he was allegedly wondering through the car but apparently didn't even mean to actually shoot the bit them even though after he fired the st shot defendant then exit the vehicle the fire another shot at the victim and as one of the honors noted this individual defendant seemed to be a pretty poor shop at that doesn't negate the intent that he had behind those shots after these two shots even more evidence in his consciousness of guilt result regarding this crime is that he fled the scene he destroyed evidence he threw the weapon a shell casing cell phone into a river i believe it later threatened to intimidate one of the state's key witnesses which was the victim's girlfriend again he may have had a romantic relationship with her this could be another potential motive why he shot the victim that clearly his point of view regarding his events is unbelievable or objectively reasonable hence why the jury rejected his outspends claim as i stated in my brief on appeal defendant is merely asking this court to re evaluate evidence that the jury has jury has already reevaluated and that is a role outside the purview of this court to an extent according happens in this case is not so unsatisfactory that it raises a serious doubt defendant's guilt in the state requests this court to affirm in regards to the nd issue which is what opposing counsel focused on the involuntary manslaughter instruction the trial court did not air this is the state's position again this is a review for abuse of discretion here contrary to opposing counsel's remarks the only evidence according to find its position regarding this instruction is  testimony and only courts have clearly held this is insufficient for such an instruction as this court stated in two thousand and seven jackson the reasoning behind this makes sense a defendant should not be entitled to reduce his st  charge to a class one felony by a hidden mental state known only to him and unsupported by the facts you defend it attempts to argue the doctor's testimony regarding the interest when the boy is consistent with defendant's testimony that the victim wanted him through the window and circumstantially this could be argued but again you're on appeal where this court should be looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and in fact the doctor never actually testified entrance wound was consistent with the victim watching himself through the window on cross examination when defense counsel attempted to have the expert testified exactly regarding this expert stated you cannot use physics to predict the track of the wind he said it once the bullet hits the body specifically a bone i'm presuming such as the show that bone that could have gone anywhere in the body further as your owners are aware only courts have consistently held one of the front intends to fire a gun once in the general direction of the victim and shoots which is what occurred here such conduct is not merely reckless and does not warrant an involuntary manslaughter instruction regardless of the defendant testifying that he didn't intend to kill anyone going forward in this case trial court reasoning one nine instruction mirrors this holding that stated even assuming defendant's versions of the events were true which according to law is not simply enough the victim was about halfway into the vehicle when the st shot was fired it would be impossible to miss i'm  wasn't an accident he intended to shoot him and he did i don't think involuntary manslaughter based on the testimony presented is an appropriate instruction the state's position as is this was not there another point that the state made below regarding the victim wanting to attack the defendant why did he go around the sorry the card to the passenger side if he really wanted to attack the defendant right away why didn't he go to the driver side again regarding intention y anyone who has ever utilized a weapon knows that if you have your finger on the trickery trigger you're planning to use it so to argue that he had his finger on the trigger in this recklessly fired is somewhat disingenuous in the states you there was conflicting it somewhat corroborating testimony from several individuals who witnessed the shooting here there was no corroborating testimony or evidence the only other person who witnessed the shooting was shot and killed by defendant intentionally not in self evidence this is not reckless conduct and there is no need for an involuntary manslaughter instruction as a result the state would request this court from the truck which judgement i would briefly go over the rd issue which is whether the trial court erred in and monitoring the potential opinion in connection that clearly rejects defendants argument even more notably this court the prior opinion and wilhite which is a court district two thousand and ten case found no error occurred regarding the specific trial judge admonished once the same judge in that specific language i think looking at specific language though it does seem that the truck or is making a credibility determination that the the trial court here said it would be impossible for him to move and it was an act that he intended to shoot in and he did and that seems to be weighing in