house once again my name is kaliya calling on behalf of the people of the state of illinois yana as the evidence in this case huge in the light most favorable to the prosecution for was sufficient to prove that defendant did have sick and sent to kill the motorcyclist when he struck the facts in this case cannot be considered in isolation whether the facts in this case have to be considered as a series of chain of events and each link in that chain of events considering its totality is what established specific incident to series of acts without any known purpose knowing it and so at some point it's clear from this record that but at any other time there really isn't anything in the record is there is to why this whole thing started and what he was thinking at any given time other than i want to continue to get  bicyclist and he was trying to get away from that crime and then you hijacked the vehicle and then he struck a motorcyclist who we don't we don't even know whether he saw the motorcyclist before he struck do we know your honor but based on the testimony of meyer stanley which was in the record one could infer that defendant's actions were intentional based on my wrist in this testimony she testified that she was coming out of her home walking her neighbors to a good excuse me her family members to a car in a nearby park parking lot she hears the sound would appears to be a loud loud echoing sound metal and like a muffler being dragged and she used the words right back she walks over into the direction of that sound at which point she sees the motorcyclist underneath the front of the defendant's vehicle a dragon found indicates movement forward now and indication to brake not an indication that defendant tried to stop or we don't understand how long  reasonably infer that his actions were intentional and because this deals with the state of mind where you don't have direct evidence there's only starcom stansell evidence based on is the people's position that based on the testimony of myra's family one could infer based on the positioning no question on who these facts that there would be enough to prove a murder but where the person survives and the specific and it becomes a more difficult case to prove especially when we all know about circumstantial evidence being generally relied on in most cases to show  what other than the fact that there was some point after impact with the motorcyclist when a witness her age scraping or dragging sound for an undefined period  and the fact that the person fled instead of rendering a what other things can you point to that would be possible to consider for the purposes of establishing  his conduct right before he struck motorcyclists he hijacked the vehicle where he pulls a woman out of the car in the middle of an intersection drops her in the middle of the street while her two minor passengers which is her child and her niece barely motorcyclist as well and then shot just a presumed now there's a distinction so i feel that there's more validity to charge him with the specific intent has to the bikes and all this than i do the motorcycle yeah at the point that you struck the bicyclist vs the time he struck the motorcyclist the motive was different at the time he struck a bicyclist he wasn't we don't know exactly what happened before but we do know by the time he struck motorcycles had committed to earlier crimes the heat people have witnessed these crimes and he was trying to get away and mo is growing and his time is specific in saying specially when you have circumstantial evidence the point is defendant was trying to get away and by any means necessary he was going to get away even if that meant he had to kill the motorcyclist was in his way and he ran him over that was the based on the evidence it was the fish and to establish that he has  something that defense counsel raised regarding other car collision cases one of those cases defendant fights it was the case of people v smith and the fact that their cases are analogous to the case the bar in people the smith the defendant the police officers have based on the fact that the motorcyclist once again was underneath the front of defendant's vehicle that indicated knoll intention was made to try to avoid contact or impact  don't get that from those facts i know you have a difficult case are going to school me but i don't understand how you can argue that the fact if you sit under the car under the front of the gone had traffic been clear he probably would have continued to drive which is right got out of the car and tried to hijack other vehicles to get away that in no way belies or contradict or proves any way that he didn't intend to run over the motorcyclist when he to escalate he was trying to get away by any means necessary he was going to get away even if that meant he had to kill dad that is what he's going to do and under the law that was agreed with me that even if you right that if he had seen the motorcyclist and he found no other way to avoid avoid half that under those circumstances he might i definitely if there was i witness testimony that said he saw him certainly that way that i looked at him that would make this case a clear that a clear winner however based on the testimony of myra stanley the sou