wesley acted voluntarily where traumatic brain injuries left him unable to cognitively control his response to certain highly salient stimuli second the state never proved that the apartment building lobby where this stimuli that he could not cognitively control as a result of a traumatic brain injury he suffered in the one nine hundred ninety seven her accident younger but it expert testimony below show that after being in a coma for three months following that accident mr wesley has severely damage frontal lobes and these are the areas of the brain that control insight judgment reasoning and most importantly here self modulation you can understand the difference between right and wrong not in the face of specific stimuli it's a matter of what stimulus he is facing if there are certain stimuli presented he won't be able to control himself as dr who have put it it's very unlikely he comported his behavior to his understanding of right and wrong when the right on her testimony and the at least five or so interactions that they've had previously it shows that this is the sort of stimuli that he is going to react to consistently and if he is able to get close enough to do this kind of touching that's what will result it is expert indicate that the very early analysis of whether or not this particular person and what she was doing on the beach or the interaction was the type of stimuli that would automatically deprive him she is presented to him he is unable to moderately his behavior in those scenarios he's not as the state put it in their closing argument he's not the kid reaching for the cookie jar he's more like the compulsive eater we cannot stop what the jury wants to do with the evidence here where multiple occasions he added count her the victim and not a sure thing why should the jury except your  going the prior interactions are a matter of record here as to how close they were with the circumstances were that might have allowed him to physically contact in this trailer in those prior cases we just can't say whether he would have been able to to control cognitively even if you know this is right or wrong how he responds in the face of that stimulus can so i'm just a take i'm just not so sure i'm fine what you're saying you see she is the type each time he's presented with that particular stimulus he's going to interact with her in some way at least we don't know exactly what the factual scenarios are in the prior interactions that they've had but it's enough to suggest that well maybe he wouldn't respond as the state pointed prior incidents his reaction in this case in this particular time isn't voluntary the state can't show beyond a reasonable doubt that he's able to cognitively control that response because of the high ceiling it's this particular  on what the jury heard they have determined that it's not that she's this type of stimuli that you can control and south but couldn't they just conclude simply that he finds her attractive or he wants to interact with her and aegis simply going to interact with her and potentially touch or given their history it's clear she is the kind of stimulus that engages that response for him and that is not a cognitively controlled action it's not an extreme all manifestation of his will examination that you know the doctor after testifying acknowledged that there are times when the family can't control his behavior even after abused there are times where he can control his behavior in response to non highly salient stimuli it's all a matter of what that category is now the doctor was unable to a pint on and what fits with in that category the evidence is strong to demonstrate that miss taylor at least falls in and unfortunately every he's presented with that stimulus he's going to respond strongly and if he's in as it was on the day of this incident people to reach or he might touch or that's not something again that shows is cognitive control over those actions that kind of complex chord needed movement can be involuntary as this court has found in the past with that line of argument can we also consider the fact that there had been these prior occasions when  in consideration well because those incidents are in front of the jury we don't have all of the factual background on those and the state needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that is actions here are all and here and there just evidence presented in this taylor's testimony as well reasonable juror cred not found beyond a reasonable doubt that mr wesley was able to voluntarily control his response in light of this particular  know we've heard this expert opinion we discovered except it gives it flies in the face of common sense any number of reasons why a jury can reject expert testimony true true but again the evidence here did not provide the reasonable juror the opportunity to farm beyond a reasonable doubt that mr wesley's actions were within his cognitive control this was an xterm a manifestation of his will such that he should the possibility the standard did set a reasonable juror can find beyond a reasonable doubt that mr wesley acted voluntarily and we have to view the evidence the light most favorable to the state and if there is a reasonable inf scenario turning to my second point the state entirely fails to prove that this apartment building lobby was a place of public accommodation the evidence shows that the area that miss taylor entered was separate from the retail stores on the first floor of this building the mcdonald's and express that have bright lights inviting customers inside or taking some goods or services to record the double doors of the building to unlock a wall of mailboxes down the hall from an elevator in a private residences and with an emergency exit in the back there is nothing attractive or interesting to the general population in that apartment building lobby as a matter of statutory interpretation plain language of this aggravated battery statute is clear a place of public accommodation is as this court is held a place the public is invited to come in and partake of whatever is being offered inside there's simply nothing being offered evidence we have really don't know what was where we we know where the mailbox is located we know where she walked in but do we know the proximity of the retail shops is it possible that she  in the area of the retail shop it's not possible that she was in the area retail shops when she was touched she testified there were only two doors but double door she walked through an exit in the back of the state doesn't prove any other interaction with those retail locations on the first floor and the apartment building lobby where she was and it's their burden to show again beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a place of public accommodation place the community is invited inside to partake in some kind of suggest that there is and it's the state's burden show this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt this was a place of public accommodation and what about the fact that she could just walk in there during the day or whatever hours were at this location which is open you want to just you again if the legislature wanted to define this offense more openly and just to suggest that any play this open or accessible to the public triggers the felony version of battery they could have but instead they wanted it to a laird doesn't establish that there is a general offer being made to members of the community hey come inside we have something that we'd like to draw you in for this isn't akin to a parking lot to a hotel or convenience store which is for distress in the past where the owners are hoping that individual members of the community will come and congregate hopefully come inside and buy some goods or services there's nothing on offer here there's nothing attractive inside to the general public or what if there is a mail slot again not something that's in the record but the mail slot would not alter the public accommodation aspect of this building because you're not in  because that's not something that's inviting the general public in for a track to vaucluse some sort of goods or services there are i would grant the point that if say there was an advertisement for apartments to read tom enquire inside maybe at that point you're advertising something the general public but that neither of those actual details are demonstrated at all on the record that we have and to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this location is a place of public accommodation more than what the state please the court as for the public place thing i just wanted to state that the definition does not have anything to do with whether of the public is attracted to a place or any products to sell or any thing in terms of business like that the cases i cited in my brief murphy ward in this course and lee all state that the common thread between the definition of public place of accommodation is accessibility by the public of this court and we also stated that the purpose for this aggravating factor the public place aggravating factor was that a battery done in public is obviously more of a threat to the community as a whole in the legislature did not intend for this language to be narrowly interpretate interpreted  other words we're we're looking at a liberal construction of the definition of public place of accommodation if you read the statute twelve ash three point zero five c person commits aggravated battery when in committing battery here she is with a person battered is on or about a public way public property a public place of accommodation or amusement at sports when your domestic violence shelter public way public property these are big these are wide definition it's obvious that the legislature did not intend for this to be a niche aggravating factor anything that's accessible to the public satisfies the definition to public place of accommodation as this course they didn't really looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution is here the evidence showed this was clearly a public building the doors were unlocked there's nothing to suggest there was a doorman or a buzzer or a key card needed to access this lobby this was a building that was about the size of a city block there were several restaurants and apartments in the building we did not know the proximity to the lobby or whether there were interest as to these businesses from the lobby all we know all that taylor testified to was that there were two exits one when it was surely present it's an apartment building and it has a lot and as along as happens as a lock not sorry a lobby now is that it doesn't have a lock if it has a lobby and it's accessible the public i would say that under the liberal definition of public place accommodation this would be in you come back to this accessible to the public language and that to may that's just as problematic as a public place of accommodation because it still doesn't get you to a do you define island this concept again it's it's not to be narrowly interpreted i would say that any place where the public is necessary if there was maybe a sign or a doorman or something that influence negatively the public from wanting to come in or something like that there may be a better argument in this case but here all we know is that these that there were double doors it wasn't a single door or anything like that and there was also another exit on the other side of the building and that these doors were unlocked and taylor and the defendant had no problem going into the building no one stopped them no one there was nothing that said that the public was not allowed in the building nothing suggests that i would say that the evidence here there could be there could be a hotel lobby earth apartment lobby that may there may be an argument that it's not a public place of accommodation but that the evidence here this was not it i the i still have trouble here finding in my mind what constitutes the dividing line between that which use a public place of accommodation and that which you cannot and you know when those are happen found the public places of accommodation when you're getting into a lobby now and maybe even a common area now within a condominium complex or town house the door might be open but is that the equivalent of siding that's accessible and i would say this it's again a liberal construction of this definition and nothing in this case suggests the opposite nothing in the thorn in my garage might be open does that make it a public place upon others no because your garage is not a block city block big with public businesses inside  allowed a reasonable inference if this was a place excess of the public that satisfy the definition of in twelve actually three three point zero five c there are no more questions on the public place issue i'll talk people versus sandie this court established that a jury assess the credibility of all witnesses including expert witnesses and they're free to disregard an expert's opinion and disregard an expert's conclusion if they so choose and you defend it if we want to contrast between this case and nelson which is the main case the defendant relies upon there are multiple distinguishing factors first is that the opinion in nelson from the expert uncontroverted she made many concessions and admissions on cross examination that defending could choose right from wrong in certain situations that defendant could control his or impulses with the social barriers that were in place at  the jury is free to reasonably infer that defendant could choose right from wrong in the situation when he touched the victim here on this in other words this was a voluntary and knowing aggravated battery the focus on example  kurt's cross examination was her very interview with defendant in that interview she admitted that if and it didn't touch or but they were authority figures in the room clearly defendant can behave himself in certain situations when he knows there's going to be consequences like he did in the interview with dr hurt and like he did apparently at this trial there's nothing in the record that suggests he had any outbursts or any and touched anyone improperly during this trial and that moved to the second part of nelson the fact finder there like here have the benefit of observing the defendant throughout the whole proceedings and nelson during even during the expres testimony that the defendant kept repeatedly making outbursts in the courtroom the jury saw that the jury could take that into consideration just like hear the jury observe definit throughout the proceedings observe his good behavior apparently there's nothing to suggest that he had any outbursts or any involuntary muscle spasms or anything like that  and they observed him during his own testimony he testified in this case clearly the jury can take that i mean we give them a great standard of great deference on review because they're in the best position to evaluate the credibility th demeanor and the behavior of all the witnesses and everyone in the courtroom they observe defending here even if it hurts opinion was that this specific case was a case of involuntary touching the  the jury was not bound by that decision they could observe defendant look at all the other evidence and say now we we think defendant has control over has sufficient control over his bodily functions and that this was a voluntary or this this aggravated battery was done voluntarily and knowingly and again i don't think sandy applies in this case it was just a hypothetical which was brought up during opposing coun argument but even even if dr firth the testimony was as conclusive as definit wishes it was it's still not the jury still not obligated to take it as gospel and if there are no more question tell it your position that this happened in a place of public accommodation yes this according to the liberal construction of the definition not a public way a public know the way it was charged was a public place of accommodation and i would argue that i just i quoted the context of the whole stack you can show that there i mean all public property is one category of a statute this is not meant to be taken literally it's that if it's in the public if it's in a publicly accessible place the threat of the community being harmed is obviously greater and that is why this aggravating factors in place your arson people be murphy this court to find a place of public accommodation as a place where the public is invited to come in and partake of whatever is being offered there that is not the same as bringing all private encounters into the entered double doors and there was only one other door to that apartment building while there is no evidence at all that the restaurants or other services on that first floor had access to that area that lobby is not a place of public accommodation where members of the public are invited in to partake in so you know as opposing counsel suggested the language here is a place of public accommodation not any place open or excess of will to the public if that was the definition then  very well could be that a front porch or an unlock iraj amounts to a place of publication but as this one is noted something needs to be on offer something needs to be attracting members of the public to trigger this felony version of shows that they were not the equivalent of pavlov's fell for him there were a horn honking in the background that did not trigger the kind of automatic stimulus response and you have defended in nelson who had this complex involved finding a phone number picking up that phone dialing it and then speaking to an individual on the other side sure he didn't make any phone calls during the course of that trial but the i would but it expert testimony in that incident showed that his actions were