there alone i represent the defendant a poet in this case mr jerry harris i raised five issues in my opening brief but the state conceded three of them which is to say aside from the constitutional question the only remaining contested issue before this court is whether the state prove the corpus to let the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon under count three of the information in this case mr harris was acquitted on count two and the state has properly conceded that it did not meet its burden with respect to counts one in four of the four account information it's under undisputed that during the incident at issue in this case mr harris was the victim of a shooting he's a thirty three year old woman flirt the livery truck driver with a valid for id card and no criminal history he had just left the club and was walking back to his car with a group of people when they were shot at about nine times mr hurst called nine one one he remained on the scene and he fully cooperated with the police that's undisputed handgun was recovered from the center console of his car which is a case as a matter of law pursuant to diggins and holmes two recent illinois supreme court decisions and again the state concedes that with respect to the applying to whether it was cased on there the aggravated awful use the weapon statute the state presented no evidence that the gun was removed from the case other than the uncorroborated alleged oral statement to the arresting officer that he returned fire in i only mention what i mentioned earlier just explain the context that the prosecution brought out to explain the course of conduct to understand why the officers acted the way they did it came out of the defense case to impeach the officer with reference to his report so it's true defense counsel didn't bring it up but he brought it up to emphasize the fact that there's actually a variation in the story contained in the police report as opposed to what was testified to earlier and also to explain that this is an anonymous person and then give the officer the option explicit why you can put the name in the case of leisure his testimony was admitted to explain again the course of the officers conduct a motion to suppress evidence but it was not admitted substantively with respect to cooperate in the statement for the purpose of the co like that rule and at the state doesn't cite any authority for the proposition that i hear say statement or some improperly admitted evidence could serve as sufficient cooperation the most recent explanation of a close to let die rule by the on ice supreme again all the cases dating back over one hundred years talk about evidence when it miscible evidence and miscible for a proper purpose the quote went on to talk about our south specific acts and the specific offenses worse where a defend charged with multiple offenses as he was in this case and made it clear that there had to be some corroboration with respect to each individual offense that was charged and if it's not cooperate with respect to one particular offense that conviction should be  the same argument is yes sufficiency the evidence reasonable doubt hopes the like diet is a subset of those sorts of arguments was it brought up the trial or was there reasonable doubt is not  argument that the state can produce enough evidence the court unfortunately found the other way on that issue but of course it's bound by you know my supreme court's ruling people versus sergeant again over one hundred years of precedent saying that it's the burden of the state to prove the c i have it right here there were two live witnesses and a stipulation for an evidence technician significantly none of those people witnessed the event they were all police witnesses it was officer coombs officer hardman and a stipulation to did they not testify in this case which creates a hearsay in a confrontation clause problem it's also matter of there's no basis to rely on her statement and fact the statement that to the extent the statement indicates that my client was out the street firing a handgun he was even his cousin jones who was shot at the scene testified that has never left the side didn't go to the car and run back i mean the state would have you believe that victims of a drive by shooting were shot at then ran two hundred feet risk car went inside  car inside the council took the gun out ran back two hundred feet had something to shoot at there is no fire the evidence in this case you should supposedly according the state furnace a semiautomatic handgun there should be cases all over the all over the street but there's no ballistics evidence in this  fired stipulation of the evidence technician who came to the scene said it was loaded with six rounds it wasn't hot to the touch there is no smell of gunpowder and you try to take g s r from my client and again he was in charge of this church is the firing of the  no would have been it was an element of a discharge charge but the state knew that he couldn't prove that so didn't bother checking it because all we have here is this anonymous person who supposedly said that he was out the street firing the gun every other piece of evidence in the record undermines that and handgun which was recovered again inside the console of his car provides a course of conduct in probable cause but they also testified that he consented and ultimately the trial judge found that he consented i'm not contesting that finding today because i don't need to but i'm not contesting it today because again in the context of the corpus elect corpus elect to have aggravated u w was proven through defendant's admission to the police in addition to various pieces a specific evidence all of which tend to prove the circumstances that defendant who think that's the case requires that there be that he was flagged down by an individual and again way and that this individual wanted to speak with him through a window this person told him that he saw a man go to his car obtain a black  it was offered defendant argues that it was offered to show the course the conduct of the reliability of the of this concerned citizen however the issue here proven for the defendants admission through the fact that a gun was recovered and for the fact that the police officer testified that the victim flagged him down inside a man and threaten me with the gun pointed that man now pointed his car out the officer is there any suggestion that there was more than one black object in the car there was only one black out there that means that testimony from the police officers report was that this concerns who this is saying that he saw the defendant reprieve a based on black letter law that would not be substantive evidence however people be terse and does say that that is something that can be considered when determining whether the into put there is independent evidence that corroborates the defendant's statement and that  said it's going to be it does have to be corroborated by each piece of independent evidence does not need to corroborate every particular detail of his confession each and his i don't have independent piece of evidence enough of the corpus to like diaby on a reasonable doubt or previous again the defendant's admission aside we still have the gun which corroborates defendant's admission and it also corroborates the fact that a crime occurred and that crime being tends to prevent the crime of aggravated u w was committed in this case so your honor if when these various pieces of independent evidence in th that the defendant admitted to firing shots in the beat and his admission the basis of the reason he went to fire shots was because he had been shot at and use of it he fired shots at the car in this case your honor is the fact that in leisure the gun was suppressed he was charged with you w and the gun was suppressed emotions as press so the only remaining evidence at so again focusing on the actual evidence substantively admitted by the state to cooperate the defendant's alleged oral statement the gun was not admitted so in that case it's completely on point with leisure because become was not admitted in either of those cases the state sites people versus their sonata i was doing as she was doing looking for a brief trying to find it i didn't find it i'm not prepared to respond to it i believe they didn't cite it to the extent they didn't cite it that argument's waived with respect to the my second and that there was a sexual assault case involved different sorts of conduct some of which were firm some of which were reversed because there was no cooperate in evidence that's analogous to the current context of advena unlawful use of a weapon where he was charged under theories of it's the bottom of the full paragraph