felonious purpose from the killing of blakely itself you see charge mr costin with felony murder blakeley predicated on as it put it in the indictment not the action because of injury  generally embry at trial the state presented evidence that caused you was involved in a brawl or fist fight on a crowded street corner you or your own witness to testify as to how that brawl started  fired into the crowd when the bullets hit lately and angry that neither of whom had been initially present at the brawl or participating in it and killed lately this evidence was not sufficient to prove th counsel actually submitted an instruction which would have prevented this theory from going to the jury and the court denied the instruction on appeal in the state of being is this theory further to clear reasons first  was my heritage in the shooting on the street or the shooting into the crowd and that the shooting was the sole cause of these in the state law and upon the same evidence to prove both the killing of blakely and the shooting  action in the underlying film so in that case a just before getting on to the question in front of a long as purpose with the state had to focus and you know specifically trying to prove to the jury that how many shots were fired and most importantly whether or not there was a part of the crime that occurred at the century that the first shot didn't kill me lakeway if the state had taken that approach a and we know for a fact that it was we know it wasn't the same ball but again we don't know whether or not the crimes complete before elite leave was still if we know that you know obviously we have if you're going for an issue whether or not there was the one at one time violation there's no question that you guys two axis stand was for that purpose but in order to establish that that there will be felony that was complete before the act that you know essentially kills him and the fact that emery got shot and later isn't enough to establish that you need to be able to find out whether any part of the crime happened before blakeley was and this is actually entire that this is only half of the problem with the state period of this year in the trial the other half is murders basically intentional knowing or strong probability murder and here are the evidence as the state again argued the trial is enough to establish the cost it was acting at least with you know knowledge that house in get it and what's important about as is that the fact that he's out of the ball and in a place of you know relative safety where he's able to choose and think about his next move means broke the speed from an initial only is over something happens after that even if it's motivated by the initial even if it when it happens but for the original crime there's still no longer approximate standing on their lawn outside of the brawl and didn't know anything otherwise particular about it's a new situation whereby that happens if caustic is going back to kill  that despite this it should be a brawl should still be considered a proper predicate felony a shooting that caustic decided to get the gun while the initial brawl is still going on and already at that point had decided to shoot there's two problems with this argument first there's no real evidence to that effect in the record we don't know when he reached the decision to do that whether it was during the fight or once he got that was house but most of the basically even if he had decided during the this case is speculating that person during a felony reached a decision between games in a course of action really an arbitrary amount of time later so long as you could argue that the leader kramer was case should be reversed for a new trial oh so some defense would come in because although you can't prove self defense things a  underlying felony is throwing punches against people in a brawl on the street the only witness to testify as to how that brawl started scipio williams testify there begin when you during a verbal in self defense once you have that much evidence instruction can be given to the state's ultimate burden of persuasion if you prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not  testimony from a bystander in the only witness to claim that he or she saw how the fight began stating that he got jumped without anything like legal you know provocation to do that would be sufficient to warrant the instruction going to the jury and consequently counsel's failure to do so is ineffective assistance of counsel so i from that in was this court has any further questions i think that