up until one point the charges were simple the proof was not totally unexpected and the instructions adequately stated announced that it was withholding to be heard for all the verdict and sent it jury off to deliberate and the reason the court gave and the only explanation in the record was that the court noticed that there were two not guilty forms for one victim and shoe guilty forms for the other  something happened we do not know on this record what happened there it's absolutely yeah nothing in the record that tells us how the verdict forms were in this case is that the jury returned to court with find heard forms and as chief counsel to the sign verdict form was for the and i have with counsel's permission have presented a chart for the court to look at not that the court doesn't know what the op fences are but just to make it a little simpler  and if you if one were to look at the two offenses aggravated criminal sexual abuse and contrast that with criminal sexual abuse one can see and counsel agree that those and not that one is not simply the aggravation out in the other but is different but because of the age requirements they are entirely different and counsel for the defendant and the state also even the issue to raise i don't think so i don't think so but but everybody thought he was convicted of aggravated on the surface stuff we don't know and i don't so the state and defense proceeded that judges and lawyers are not supposed to read the and demeanor evidence and we don't know the demeanor of the two children in this case one of them was older one of them was shattered you know that had both ways but in the one case it seemed to me somebody even walked into the room at the man case you know that tells us that we have to look at were allowed to examine interpret all parts of the record to determine the meaning of the verdict and so we do that i think justice oh question really is getting it just that when we look at the fact that no one argued that this gentleman should be found guilty of criminal sexual abuse that it wasn't in any jury instruction just in that one verdict form which is also different than some of the other cases where it's been determined that you can't guess what the jury was doing and the fact that everyone proceeded as if he had been convicted of actually still keeps me what is there in the record i do think the one jury verdict for also i mean i mean that tells you that you can look throughout the record but you still have to look at the verdict and it is their verdict or is there a perfect and here it's a lesser included documents can you read can you read in the act painting a family here we cannot read in the aggravating of fans it's not a matter of mental state it's a matter of age agency couldn't have been found and my are my argument is that the defendant wasn't found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it's acceptable to be treated as though there's convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse here there is no possibility for the elements to prove that also in criminal sexual abuse the facts make it impossible for second criminal sexual abuse to even be found here again even assuming that a left field that the jury was actually convicting him of criminal sexual abuse basically what the jury's verdict says that they didn't believe his acts were not for sexual conduct or for purposes of sexual gratification basically they didn't believe  charges are in dispute so base that's how we know there's no there's no confusion here there's no complication in the jury's verdict in the first form it could only be is no judicial reason whatsoever for the jury to give one count right criminal sexual abuse and then get a very form for the other count only criminal sexual abuse especially when from the charging instruments on the only thing discussed was aggravated criminal sexual abuse that's the only thing that could be discussed based on the victim's age and based on defendant being a family member i mean defendants not under seventeen defendant isn't five years less than five years older and there wasn't any evidence of any use of force or anything like that again that's why in  cases they go back you know was they let the word intentional off one of the verdict forms supreme court found that this was cured by jury instructions here the jury was specifically instructed on all the elements of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and never instructed on any of those i mean their instruction of sexual conduct because it was the same in both but none of the other elements of criminal sexual abuse because as i said the facts make it impossible to  of that and that's how we know the jury was not misled or confused at all here presumably they had to guilty their one guilty verdict form for each count they signed them either didn't know or as lay people didn't know the difference between aggravated or criminal sexual abuse and i think that's presumably what happened in the polling as well i'm sure in the jurors mind they were being polled on whether they found any guilty or not guilty or not whether it was criminal sexual abuse or aggravated so the state's the state's position is that there should be no confusion here based on the whole record charging instrument arguments from  counsel and defense counsel the evidence presented and the further instructions to the jury all of them point to x rated criminal sexual abuse and i would  the state would also submit that this argue is forfeited at the very least there is the there is a gray area whether the defendant actually saw the proposed the new birth form or not but at the very least he from the jury verdict form when the instructions and everything make a plea clear of the jury's intention would obviously not be consistent with the ends of justice especially when right until after they had reached a verdict which is completely different than the situation we have here well i don't know if it's completely yes it's it's not completely on point but i think that the goes on to say that we are to look at the entire record it is possible that the early can be cured by the instructions and davis seems to stand for and right seems to stand for a bright  line rule that once the jury is gone there's nothing that can be done those seem like inconsistent positions to me i say without respect i think th