OK....
So, you think this:
"Because we conclude that a conviction under � 9-11-244 requires a showing that the defendant either knew or should have known that the area over which he was hunting was baited, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Phillips could be found guilty even without proof that he baited the field or knew that the field was baited.   Therefore, we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
is what qualifies you, or your buddy, for an exception.
BUT, the fact is that he was hunting with YOU, on YOUR land and YOU put the bait out. So, he should have known because YOU did.
Sorry if that simple fact escapes you, or you just can't get your arms around it!
