but in in in york brief you say there should be an outright be first because the jury was instructed that the defendant either possessed with intent to deliver more than one but less than fifteen and they were given a lesser included offense of possession now you say that they are for there should be an outright reversal but you don't cite in the case and the question is that whenever i mean that the court considered them or did they actually cite to a pace that says that whenever a defendant just charged with possession with intent to deliver and there's a lesser included offense of possession for  court that reduced the amount to a lesser amount that's correct r n well isn't the case law for that whenever there's a defendant cannot be found guilty of state i don't know how they're going to respond to this case but i'm not certain go ahead and tell us what that case that's well in that case they were doing with presidential burglary first burglary all right and so at that time was it that the address your to the already that just as it was a technical question i review i noticed that a trial the defense attorney never objected to the testimony of the expert witness with respect to so so it's really a reasonable doubt challenge and you know defense counsel wasn't required to do good  on their weakest point which was intentional is that what the case is that we just kind of a let us focus on our do they focus on the fact that it's the attorney the prosecutor give him test this  seven o'clock in the morning in the guy standing on the corner there's nobody else around he has not been observed making any kind of a transaction whatsoever but also significant you're going to say high crime area he was in a high crime area so what i mean cocaine totaling one point eight grams yet seventy five dollars in cash and the police officer testified he was familiar with the type of objects used to consume crack cocaine such as around cylinder of some type such as a car antenna or glass tube with openings of photons the officer also stated that this amount of crack cocaine was inconsistent with personal consumption another officer testified that the size of the individual r was most likely selling the cocaine the officers both testified in white that the area where defendant was arrested was a known location where illegal drug activity took place on a negated any need for devices such as the basis that would be needed to cut away to substances they were prepackaged for sale and that's the situation we have here however yes there are a number of ways you decided on a case by case basis and i submit that the jury had to consider all these factors in addition to the package but he still had to have show some evidence so that the liberal yes even to catch what are you relying on other than the number of packets they had to say he had forty dollars in cash now to some jurors that may seem like a lot of money to other ters that might not seem like much but ultimately it's a question of that's correct there isn't testimony however that doesn't preclude the jury from considering that fact a jury you know without such testimony could consider all the factors that bring their life experiences al the jury is free to consider all the evidence that they hear any factor that they may find significant in their determination and ultimately it's their determination that these cases are all unique they have to look at thirty packets but we don't have other drug paraphernalia you know like pipes or needles or whatever and then we enter in which the drugs are packaged and we do have again i think that's on both of those you can use the packaging and of course these aren't meant to be you're you're avoiding accusing you of being my hypothetical when i say if those the fact was the only factor with that being off when you talk about other circumstances you're basically cocaine so there you go you're stuck with it he said it was ninety six grams of cocaine is depleted nowhere here we have a different situation but the discussion coleman was because he jumped everything and threw up and down six packets into a weight boat to get past one gram that's what he said but here the the expert he was qualified as an expert in forensic chemistry he has to make a decision because he has to render an expert opinion he has to decide on a case by case basis how he like oh they're not doing this all the time how is this going to be a problem how he's going to be i should realize they were doing best how he the state obviously has the burden of proof we put on the testimony of it yes for which is the jury heard the testimony heard to procedures the jury was free to accept their testimony reject testimony here to it was the expert opinion expert witnesses opinion based on a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that not only was this heroin but it was over one gram and up to suggest otherwise is almost trying to bring back the reasonable hypothesis of innocence test where we're thinking well you know maybe argument about what the evidence showed there was no way of that whatsoever that he packaged this stuff and yet the prosecutor race that is an interest from the other whatever other