residential burglary he was also found guilty of resisting however that's not been challenged on appeal and he was found not guilty of criminal damage to property i think it's important to know what this accountability jury instructions drafted the defense counsel objected i'm not certain if it was on the record the basis of the objection from why what the state withdrew from their instructions to the jury was not  on the noise stuff so it isn't is there any question that if the jury believed there was an intruder the dam's a backdoor that there was at a minimum sufficient proof for a jury to conclude someone tried to gain unlawful entry into the home  the building but let's assume let's assume that there were people who got in they were trying clearly committing the time presidential term and let's also assume that even mr fein happened to be standing on who if you are there and you're there for the purpose of the read you go to the location if you're waiting outside for a tree to be gay even if he's not the person kicking in the door he's responsible for his own conduct as a principal record first the printed ins shows that the defendant was in the backyard and this is shown by the garden hose reel his footprint was on top of the garden hose reel but that wasn't in the backyard  no it was not but it was next to a fence going into the backyard and his footprints was faced towards the back yard showing that he had placed in himself over the fence a result kinder could have  this this is the only out then it's that showed any of the four people in the back yard sense there was no usable footprints in the backyard and since the neighbor never saw anyone specifically in the backyard there's a strong inference that he was in the backyard because its footprint was on a real on the other side of the fence facing in a particular direction correct and no real is around a foot and a half off the ground and was the fence was around waist immediately found the defendant very close to the house that one officer found him very close to the house while the other was the risk analyzing these prints unequally using in the backyard but found footprints that led directly to the defendant and his friend sign the fact that this isn't the time of burglary what happened is not relevant considering that that is what happened  and the damage to the door shows that the defendant and was trying to enter this house because there was damage to the lock and there were six hundred six hundred dollars in damage and office test on it somehow you can track footprints for blocks if you're going to leave that and then to find it he couldn't find a single footprint anywhere and if you look at the evidence that if he had entered the backyard there was only one footprints right immediately on the other side of that fence too and there is nothing and this is my point that the question is there is clearly not enough evidence and that someone was trying to gain or recess he conveys that through the fall of his fellow officer the defendants are told he's under arrest and then he tries a plea but that's all that's that's it's pure speculation again this is not a case of him being guilty as an accessory those things hanging around a place and then there was no issue with giles as to accountability not be an issue and here that's a crucial fact is that they withdrew their accountability instructions so they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty is the principle that he specifically intended to actually enter the home that he himself was going to be the one to go inside himself he had the intent to go inside with intent to steal