was creating the offense that affect the description of that offense the state was alleging prove that hughes does not come within the exception where where the exception is so descriptive of the events the exception must be negated by the state in order to charge the accused with the offense here the offense is titled prescriptions lack of a prescription is descriptive of this crime and saps that it is the state's burden to prove this element and the state included the phrase without a prescription the charging instrument and acceptance of the burden in this case this is analogous to the offense of unlawful use of weapons which is committed when a person carries or possesses concealed on or on or about his person except when on this land or in his own a e or fixed place of business any firearm exceptions descriptive exceptions within the body of the subset of the that then i'm sorry to bias have seen to dance must be disproven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt in order to sustain a conviction for this event and that did not happen here here in the element of lack of prescription is so descriptive of this offense it is in fact the state had to disprove i think the state ever does well it's interesting your honor because when you look at the two other cases that have come out recently people be louison people the laws they were able to prove both of those cases rasa stipulated bench trials here in the fourth district and in both of those cases well in laws they simply stipulated that mr laws like to prescription and he i'm sorry lewis in people the laws ok the end and some of this is not in the record i apologize but it does help to answer the question the employer says the national precursor log so there's the there is the employer employee it's record itself but what you really need additionally and what the state can easily do is as they did in laws they had a stipulation that they could get through testimony the influx creates a business  pharmacy tracks the people who are vying to have a dream so what happens is if you were to go to trial on this and you have their work on the stand you ask them about the impacts law you ask them about the state in question how is this law created what is your training on this and you get them to clearly testify a person's name on the implants log means they bought this without showing a prescription there is your proof that did not happen in this case that that could easily be done but again it's a combination of employer in theory if every pharmacy is trained properly and following this properly that was the testimony from law's i guess i would kind of went down the rabbit hole of research us today and i can find definitions for the national precursor log exchange but what i really rely on is the stipulation from laws however that's what this is created this is created for that purpose and the state has the stroll at their use all they would have to do is bring in the person to appear by the business record and testify as to how here's how we get pharmacists know whether or not this person had a prescription but first of all i suppose if you know did a search yesterday it's a national computer registry it links pharmacies in illinois and all participating states i take that information from what i've gleaned from reading a bunch of illinois state or illinois case  government agencies and like i said your honor i'm i don't have a definitive yes or no answer to your question about is this a government exchange or not that didn't show up in this case and i'm afraid to say what about the fact that she made one hundred  purchases she's charging that's part of the stipulation when there be some type of circumstantial evidence that you could conclude from that she really didn't have a prescription but it is not court has already dealt with she her by are also consistent with somebody who didn't know when driving from county to county to county she again what the test here is when the exception is so descriptive of the events that if the exception has to be negated in order to charge the accused with your pants here whether the possessor of the methamphetamine precursor has only exception office protectively on the causes him to commit the events here's the purchase without a prescription that makes this contract subject to the statute this element is so final fundamentally descriptive that it must be proven by the state and the state has vast resource critical here though is what's missing is that additional information from the pharmacy people there on the day that this one sale was made we asked you do not see prescription that's an easy that's a question that they should be asking that's easy information for the state is an interesting issue that i've given some thought to it i haven't been able to actually come up with a suitable proposal to the court you know it seems as though what the supreme court has done and all sure i think is how you pronounce that is try wrestle with the burden of proof placed on the state where they have an exception included within the definition of the offense you know that the court was dealing at that time with possession of a foot of a firearm illegal  it's not a violation of the law to do so if you're in your own house on your own property in your own business so that appears to be something that that's kind of like a status that can be proven or disproven you know where was mean you don't get your prescription back on them yeah i think they do keep a record of a judge but i can go in and i can buy pseudo medical or whatever that stuff is called today without a prescription and if i'm rushed for having done so i can say why i did it no one asked for scription i didn't wasn't required but i do have one so the fact that i didn't presented at the time of purchase is not indicative of the fact that i was given one or not you know so all these things are pretty much over the counter and i don't know which drug store keeps records of everything that you purchase i'm not even sure they do that perhaps they do but even so that doesn't address the issue of whether now we have a prescription and that's what was heretic rogers in this court's decision and alice i mean it there that the issue is do you have a restricted driving permit you're driving on a suspended or revoked license you have a suspended driving permit of course that well that's not really part of the body and i understand of course struggling trying to come up with a definition that kind of makes sense that can be applied in newer situations in order to give us clarification of what is what is not part of the actual definition of the offense but i think what the court was doing in alice rogers is saying look you know we're not going to burden the state with a tempting to contact all fifty secretaries of state from all the states in the union to see of perhaps you were given a restricting private permit one of them that's a burden that's easily established by you that's an affirmative defense if you have a restricted crime permit produced in the same vein that you have a prescription produce that's a little different from your status as a homeowner where were you at the time you were arrested that's something we can establish quite easily i don't think we excellent suggestion and i agree with you i think those issues are out there and that's an interesting question in researching as i did not come across a case of that nature describing how they dealt with it that would be potentially formative i don't know think i've heard of that too i'm not certain of that i don't know if you can bring an affirmative defense but i took it out of that bottle you know because i want to put it in my weekly whatever container i don't know if there are defenses where those fences would be but i can see where the same issues would be raised in those types of cases and i believe those would be a permanent because this is well i don't think it's part of the burden of the state to establish all of those exceptions when proving that you're in possession of a drug that is regulated and i think it's your obligation to establish that you have a prescription for it so i think that's how those cases are handled but i can't speak intelligently to it but you know that's a very good  point to me it just comes down more to a matter of proof i can see where the courts kind of wrestling with this i don't know you know what the supreme court meant by part of the body you know it just seems to be that they're trying to say well  weapon is not enough itself a crime unless you assessing it in a place where you should not be allowed to do it as opposed to possessing methamphetamine or methamphetamine precursor having already been convicted of a crime under the act itself is a crime unless you can establish you have a prescription for it but i can appreciate counsel coming up when we bottle and saying well you know that's not true either you know the same exception so it's a very loose definition i understand the problems everybody's having just seems to so it's more of an element of proof status of the defendant something easy to establish but i haven't been able to come up with this great scarcity of cases that interpret this but it's a very clear tatts is this element so descriptive of the offense if it's so descriptive of the offense and the state has the burden of proving that element ok and some questions that came up yes if something is controlled there are requirements to selling that item and just turn just like you were saying you're required i think is like this recently have to keep your prescription in a bottle or when you're going to the airport you're going to have problems able you're going to have difficulty proving that that is a safe substance that you want so how easy would it be for the state to say well if you buyers who have to dream with the prescription we're going to give us the pharmacy has a specific sticker that they place on that just like