pickett the jury heard all about the statement camilla provided only the testimony was hearsay as it was afeard for the truth matter asserted moreover because to quote i was not given the opportunity to cross examine him or camillo regarding  that there was a black market and that the going price for a seven dollars box was fifty dollars correct ok and then the defendant takes a box from circumstantial evidence by the jury however the intent element needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the only evidence connecting to quote any reference to methamphetamine came through camillus statement without her statement you have no connection whatsoever between chicago prado and methamphetamine there was no discussion about a payment for that pseudoephedrine there was no discussion about what that pseudoephedrine would be used for there was no evidence that chicago had ever had anything to do with methamphetamine before and this without camillus statement plugging in all these holes that the circumstantial evidence left open the jury certainly could have not been able to climb piano reasonable doubt that the intent was proven through the testimony of camilla was the police questioned her specifically about what kind of information she might have regarding other drug offenses and people she knew that it was because they were always trying to find the next person the next person up in the methamphetamine chain the questions asked by police were testified to specifically and the police testified that in response to her answers they targeted him as somebody that would be interested in the and purchasing pseudoephedrine with the intent that it be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine without this evidence connecting the dots from the the pseudoephedrine found in his car to the intent the jury would not have been able to find in the syrian sense this is not a situation of of course an investigation because the substance of the conversation between the police and camilla was testif have any reason to suspect that he would be interested in purchasing pseudoephedrine and as such their testimony went beyond what is allowed under the course of the investigation while they testified to the substance of the conversation they  answered serial questions which is another factor that takes that outside of the course of investigation of wasn't one simple question of peaches and pages of testimony without camilla camilla information the state would not have been able to prove the necessary intents to title moreover he was extremely prejudiced by the admission of this hearsay evidence because the disputed issue was at trial as i said what  this intent element and this hearsay evidence or directly on that element moreover i was not able to cross examine her she gave this information to police after being arrested for the possession of methamphetamine and her on her own she was in trouble they were asking her to give somebody up these are things that would have been very important for trying to be able to cross examine her on and he did not have the ability to do that the jury was never told that this evidence was not being offered post time motion of which there was none which goes to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel moreover under the clean air all the evidence of intent was closely balanced and this evidence certainly could have swayed the jury the testimony that was given by officer frazier and in space to shaky it did not constitute hearsay testimony in their explanation they were explaining the investigative steps that they had taken in on or to lead to the rest of the defense as far as and ten there are plenty of evidence circumstantial never and the car then he proceeded to state that the police officer had planted the box that he had removed from the angles car on the that also shows and he did not have the end him and knowing that he had legally was going to use it for legal purposes and no time in his statement did he ever hear of any reason  why he had possessed it and he did not say that it came from anyone else or that it was for any of the purchase he also paid fifty dollars he denies state and his statement the state knew at trial that the evidence of intent was questionable they should've called camilla to testify and they did minutes instead they tried to circumvent the defendant's rights under the confrontation call by inserting her statement through the t officers because the evidence of the issue of intent was so close we cannot be sure that the jury did not rely on this improper evidence in finding to plateau guilty and as such this court should reverse this conviction and remand for a new trial