in limited circumstances such as these where the defendant delivered multiple controlled substances that are all in parallel to the victim but is charged with driving to this time a sign on the basis of only one of those the herald this here so i really believe the issue is was near harmless in this case and i believe you look at the jury instructions as a whole you would determine that unlike  now and by the way trial court found we agree this defendant even if you believe i'm assuming here that you believe the state's evidence was sufficient that the defendant indeed did deliver these reading this the most logical conclusion for the jury then is that the defendant's acts were the delivery of heroin and the delivery of fed and if that was not how it should be interpreted then the jury should in the jury instructions delivery apparently it's two references and seven to eight as your honor mentioned is a substance containing here so again i think it has the same it suffers from the same problem jury in this case but i believe my burden before your honor's this morning just to show you why you should not find i believe you'll find there but i don't believe i have to show you if we look at the jury instructions as a whole and look at substance containing heroin that's where the jury can not hear because of a conflation because of an ambiguity because just just very hard to understand jury instructions they can not make it clear you have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the limerick of heroin was a contributing cause to her death these jury instructions are different than what happened here so i believe it does matter although it is not dispositive that this is one concoction containing ben ali here only because the concoction delivered could have been considered a substance containing her that the fair thing to do here is too much remand the case for jury instructions that would probably separate out i think is like i looked at the new pattern instruction which now has a bracket in serial  i i it almost sounds as if you're saying this is a random act well i just don't justifiable reason and perhaps looking to will the defendant did in the course of arguing with this cleese officer is said well then you give the employer because you can't tell me what i did if i know what i did to you i have all missed calls from the girl on the six i already knew the shit was coming today they already said all the shit th artie said where they said that her boyfriend said that i was in her in his fucking house in rango that left her foaming at the mouth at that point i would say that's not fun and unambiguous a request regardless because it says it's kind of explaining why she thinks she might need a lawyer but not really asking for were great at that moment but either way she continues to talk there is no way that an officer could have even begun censure of her nor do they need to under order the defense went on i don't recall the judge making a specific factual i mean that she didn't know there was no in there we don't know either way she may or may not have a pre that it was her contributing cause verses about who were kind of analysis which is what the defendant won and substantially what the court did when she said it must be an independently sufficient cause and that's not we all know you know that obviously at this contributing cause he's already testified that the air level in of itself would be sufficient that's more than enough to find that cause he said in terms of raising this argument about acts after the fact it was not raised at the trial level that it should have been world in fact what the defendant did there were several aspects leading up to the delivery obviously packaging i assume bringing it over to her  clutter drug scene there is a some kind of a syringe sitting on one of the tread of the dresser right where the victim had been found that there's no indication that the officer actually saw it that he knew about it was in that picture but the whole room was so chaotic that the paramedics actually said when they st came and face up that they were going to save her and so they actually had to move her out of there for the safety of the paramedics and officers to try to revive her which state dead track then they were unsuccessful so when they st came upon this it was not a crime scene may think that she felt a little more of the touch they thought maybe they could save her and they thought for the safety they had n i don't know if the officer at the time did in fact notice that syringe or not there's no evidence that he did he said he collected everything to the  show that date and failing to preserve this keep this collective and the thing is that at that time they certainly didn't know that it was dr hall at that time at best they knew there was somebody who w doing but again we don't know we know that there's a picture showing a syringe of some kind we know that laurie cool says i never told the officer about it or anything about it i never saw it i never threw it out defense to argue that she obtained the heroin from another source in so your position uses it youngblood doesn't require them to go beyond their  thing looked at it and they knew it was six cult versus just potentially exculpatory and there's nothing in the record that they ever saw the syringe no no and in fact the problem is that  with regards to the statement just a comment that miss hall said you can get me an attorney then because you can't tell me what i did if i know what i believe them because the men weakens or makes it an ambiguous request and finally with regards to the young one argument i just believe that you know we don't have to show hatred for geraldo all we do have to show because this is