my name is sarah lucy with the office of the state a public defender representing darryl allen in this case the state fails to meet its burden of proof when it did not call the owner of the property in question to testify that she did not  allen her permission to be in the house on that day this is especially important in this case because mr allen was her next door neighbor and while she got out of the house to be boarded up it was absolutely likely that she this case because the facts do are not overwhelming and are very indicative that he might be able to help out in the ever missed eriksson's lack of testimony to the fact that she was not called to the stand simply to tell the court no i did not tell any of my neighbors before this incident happened that they could help out in the emergency the court i'm sorry the state just simply fails to meet its burden that it had to prove that he did not have to worry in this case well ms maguire which is the owner's daughter she testified that she did not know whether or not her mother or her brother knew mr allen there whether or not they had given him permission she was only able to testify that she herself was not had not given him permission but she was never the owner of the house and had not lived in the house since two thousand and three what she did testify to was that she lived in a neighborhood that to her testimony was in a poor neighborhood and that the embers looked out for one another because of that she testified about an incident where a grill had gone missing from her front porch and neighbors had helped to retrieve that in fact in this case her cross the street neighborhood called nine hundred and eleven to let them know about two people that were breaking into the house so it's entirely reasonable that when mr for terror came home in and then he left his house to go and call the police this is consistent with officer grimes testimony that when mr allen left the house he left the house without scope and without the dollar he left completely empty handed despite the fact that officer have alerted mr allen that he was there he had observed when you observed in the house he stepped back around the corner and then mr allen left with nothing in his hands which you clarify for testified on his own behalf that he was not familiar with moving dollies and i think it's entirely consistent with how dolly's knew that sometimes it requires a bit of directional back and forth and again he then put the dalai down and left the house empty handed he did not carry the stone so while the state believes that this can be but they proved its case with circumstantial evidence the illinois supreme court has said in people the roads are the only evidence supporting a conviction is circumstantial the guilt of the houston must be so thoroughly established as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in this case i do not believe that every reasonable hypothesis of innocen been excluded and so if the court or of sorry if the state wishes to rests purely on circumstantial evidence it also has not risen to that burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt while it says that there was a forced entry there is no proof that mr allen broke a window because when the police officer came upon him he didn't have any injury on his hands he didn't have any broken glass in his person he didn't have any burglary tools that would be consistent with him being the one who broke the glass and in fact if the nine hundred and eleven call indicated that there were two people that committed the initial burglary the status of contends that he only told the police were that he told the police this is my said that that was his indication mr allen testified that he pointed to the house next door and said this is my sister's house which is to testify his sister did not that he falsely said that the stove was already in the door when he returned home but the state offered no proof that the stove was not in fact already in place by the time he came home and indeed it is consistent with there being two prior burglars who move to the stove and then abandon their crime that he came across and try to be a good neighbor to hi for these reasons he asked that this court reversed his conviction knowing that the state did not meet its burden of proof and offered insufficient evidence as a matter of poor turning if i may to the issue of the jury polling that occurred in this case complete jury polling there before the jury polls before the court hold one of the jurors the juror in question gave no indication that she did not fully agreed with what  happened in the jury room she didn't ask to speak to the court she didn't bring anything to the court's attention she sat until she was asked by the court is this your verdict and then said no or rather indicated some two internal conflict and i wasn't sure that that was really her verdict and there was no way of knowing that without asking each individual juror so in this case by not asking  there is no way of knowing whether he was that pivotal twelve juror who would have made the vote not unanimous because a criminal case must be decided by unanimous verdict and in this case we do not have that guarantee despite the fact that the defendant requested the jury polling it is worth this court remanding this case back to the new trial if it decides not to reverse outright his conviction so that the entire  to both parties briefs any rational trier of fact could have found the essential omas of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and that the evidence must be looked at in the light most favorable to the prosecution and that means that every reasonable inference must be accepted in favor of the prosecution and those present are very important in a case like this where there is some dispute between the parties as to what happens and so if the jury can reasonably believe the state's proof with overwhelming in support of the officers observations as to what was going on here and where the circumstances including a broken window with glass inside the residence and a bucket underneath which could be used to step on or get up in the window and so that description in the window shows the point eventually of the person who then has also removed the boarding from the garage door where near where the dolly with the stove is located the stove that was missing from the kitchen intention of the of the owners to keep the boarded up to protect the property inside that is an indication that whoever is inside attempting to remove those belongings is not in fact have full ready to do so from anybody including the owners  because of the circumstances of it being boarded up and the other evidence about it being boarded up to protect the contents of the of the house and also when the defendant says in response to a police question and seen its being his sister's home and then the trial his home to explain that well he was really referring to the next door where his cousin lived who we thought was his he treated as if she was his sister because  growing up together again that's all jury question as a jury can rationally disbelieve the defendant's explanation for his comment to the police and to believe that the defendant actually displayed consciousness of guilt by attempting to say well it's essentially it's ok for him to do this because his sister's home meaning the house that he was in is being his sister's home and that's that's not true and if he's lying to police in order to try to get away with this that is consciousness of guilt and that means that the jury then reasonably i just saw this house it seemed to open and i was going to go inside as a concerned citizen to see if you know to check it out if that is his explanation for being inside the jury to believe that it's much of that is that once too and part of that could be that with respect to the proof the element that he enter without authority is that he is by his own admission entering as merely a concerned citizen not somebody who is acting with authority from an owner for example somebody who has a key as a next door neighbor who might have received a key for example from an owner but that's not the claim that he made he claimed that he simply open through an open door as a concerned citizen so the jury can sense agreed that that constitutes proof that he in fact entered without authority from so without that sort of showing of some sort of disagreement or problem that might call into question you know new video verdict the sign verdict form constitutes the showing that this was in fact a unanimous verdict and the lack of you briefly in response to the state's argument about the burden of proof i understand that it's on me in this case however to close the illinois supreme court again merely because the trier of fact except in certain testimony or made certain inferences based on the evidence does not guarantee the reasonableness of its decision and i would say that in response to your question justice segment who owned the building only  state offered evidence is exhibit l that she was the sole owner listed on the deed sheet on the house for a great many years and the only thing that the state had to do to meet its burden in this case was call her to testify that she had not given him permission if the state had done that i could not be in front of this court today but unfortunately for some reason the state chose not to do that and therefore did not meet its burden to the jury p error but i would also argue that everything that the state and i have said at this podium today has pointed to this being st prong plain error clearly the evidence is very close there's very little debate about the actual fact but very much debate as to who who had the actions that led to the facts so the state points to the broken window but there is no indication that mr allen was the person who broke the window we know that is still inside of the house was moved into the garage we don't know who initially moved that stone from the house into the garage the nine hundred and eleven call that indicate that it was two men not mr allen working alone and so the the closeness of this evidence