good morning counsel our case at this time this case number four fourteen zero three one find the people the state of illinois versus lucas cared for the helen we have mr wilson and for the happily we have m mcneil are you ready to proceed counsel mr wilson additionally by the time of trial there was no longer a charge stating that weakness remained within the building with the intent to commit a film that charged that part of the the original charge an instrument did not make its way to trial and instead  the state charges the sort of hybrid theory that he entered the facility with lawful authority but then he proceeded to go to part of the facility that he entered without awful authority burgle that house and i break in the front door i walk through the living room walk through a kitchen down the hallway to a better for instance i steal a necklace and i turn around i walk directly back the same route under the state's theory i have an office building or any other office going to he's not remaining any where he's lawfully walking around that he sees an opportunity to commit a burglary by entering some office and steal some stuff it seems to me to be a real strange interpretation to say well that's a burglary by remaining with what's he remaining with it well he's remaining within the obviously he's not outside strangling when he leaves the office about this there was no problem with part of the building with intent with theft lies and then a burglary and that's the second part of the art here is that if this court disagrees and if the court adopts the theory that you're proffering that the second part of your argument is that there was no evidence in this case that the part of the building that yes there has to be some indication that he is not permitted to be in that area in order to save the state burglary count here in the room that we are talking about in this case was directly down the public hallway give me an explanation that you would give the earlier when he was retrieving his daughter no one told him he could not go into that room the door was open the lights were on if he was a member of the public perhaps he would go into that room you know it's a secretary of state's f look at you need license information background information thought forms and that type of thing the video shows or speak a computer in that room there are purposes with which someone someone may view that room and think that's a room that i can go into to accomplish the goals of whatever the reason is that i'm here and the the reason he initially when there was to retrieve a stock that was earlier correct but that wasn't the basis of the stair it was earlier but no one at that time told him that he was prohibited from going into that room in fact the little girl he'd been chasing her throughout the entirety of the office she had been behind the main counter she had been in the other rooms of he soldiers she'd been running all around the waiting room and it was his job that day to fall were ever she went in the sack never once said no you can't come behind the counter now you can't come behind the caraquet or no you can't go into that office we judge weather and part of building is open for public use by the steps that someone has taken to show that it is not in people versus richardson for example case inside the briefing in that case there was the circumstances of this particular situation are sufficient to prove the defendant has no authority and they do it no authority to answer this part of the building the jury is allowed  nder their their own experiences however their evidence the evidence in this case wasn't limited to that what i mean by that is the state apparently concerned that they had offered enough evidence to after viewing this for you get you have any conclusions about that room and he said i have the conclusion that that is a room i have a quote here that is not one for civilians or the general population only to someone who was s essentially in the same position that the jurors were someone who had the same evidence at their disposal of the jury someone who would view the bigger tape just of the jury and that is now coming in commenting on ultimate issue back to the jury this was a case where the jury the case my understanding of the facts is it is a police officer who knew a defendant before he was able to view a video and could testify regarding the identification of the defendant on the video the operative facts here is the officer had a prior knowledge of the defendant before he offered this testimony he was essentially giving identification testimony what we have here is an entirely different situation we have someone who again may never been in the plain facility and he gets up on the stand someone with the same information all content you know that the same knowledge that the jury did and he comments on ultimate issue of fact that being no general public is allowed to go in that room i can tell that from looking at video so thompson really doesn't limit this discussion at all because we don't have someone in first making an identification of a person and we don't have somebody making an identification based on knowledge they had prior the facilities involved here similarly thompson was in no position to comment on whether this was seen carrying something out of that office that day the state asked him does it look like he's carrying something in foster says why yes does again that is the sort of thing that a jury should have been left to the side this isn't the sort of issue that this is where the state can call a witness who can view the exact same videotape the jury c and can give their opinion on that when they have no prior knowledge of now not only did foster testify that he believes he saw the scary something from the room but also miss ma she had testified yes he's carrying out a wad of cash and i can identify that water cash because whenever i want bundle money at the secretary of state's office i use for rubber bands and i put them around the money in a certain way and i can identify that that's the way bundle that money that day if there was some characteristic that was different from any other money in the world that she could identify yes it need very well be probative and you know that's the requirement before the trial court could  that this that she didn't say to the exclusion of any other bundle of cash in the world oh in order for any arguing that well what i'm saying is if there's one item or a set of items that is completely common any one has a common experience handling it's money max's testimony wasn't that there was a stack of a three inch stack of what a twenty dollar bills and that's the same three inch stack of twenty dollar bills he's carrying out with office looking at the area where maddox was counting cash earlier goes back to the counter with with this by the freedom or standing there the defendant then bends down his mouth to cannot see the mouth of the defendant moving you cannot see the mouth of the finish moving but the i would say not only is it a reasonable inference from the only logical inference that he is speaking into place here could he have been giving her a little peck a little ki there not in the video evidence if you look at it you can sort of see when he goes to retrieve her the first time he takes a little bit longer than a normal look into the area where the cash w office but it's also if you look at the video i mean she's wandering around aimlessly throughout the beginning part of the video this time she's almost running to a place where she was directed to run course there no evidence or suggestion by any audio of that but it's a reasonable inference for the jury to make is that she was running because her dad just told her to run to the back of the jury also here the state didn't really concentrate on this angle in closing argument however the element that is in dispute here is whether the defendant solicited compelled or directed n j it's just facilitate in order to the burglary defendant grabs her during the burglary she's not in the room to finish grabs her near the bathroom and then takes her into the room and that's when he committed the burglary  a jury properly instructed on the elements of the burglary here could easily find that that was a you can tell her i mean he was taking her with his hand into the room to take to commit the burglary  and of course she was facilitating this because she would obviously be his excuse if he was coming out of the room or asking why they why he was back there so i was retrieving retrieve my daughter again so that is another way the instructions here they were properly instructed on the elements of burglary and they could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by that angle even though the state didn't really concentrate on that angle of this closing argument so there of course there's two reasonable ways toward the four defendant be found guilty of that charge one the reasonable inference that when he was bending down his mouth to her ear that he did whisper and that she did stiff whisper to commander building the best defense against that is the plain language of the burglary statute that burglary statute clearly calls for either are not rise injury into a building or a separate a certain part of a building that charged in this very case and it was charged with entering a certain part of the building specifically this office and the secretary of state facility this court's decision in davis which i relied on in my brief is directly on point go to the front door therefore he wasn't guilty of burglary this court rejected that and they put in that this case this quote illinois courts have recognized that entry into certain that separate areas of a building with the requisite in t to support a burglary charge the statute implements this logic by providing entry into certain structures or any part thereof as an element of burglary here's the money quote any discussion by the state or the defense regarding the front door is therefore immaterial to prove a burglary that's that's important here because again that the defendant going through the front door of the secretary of state is completely immaterial to his unauthorized entry into this office building parapet case which defendant cites in his reply brief specifically distinguishes davis in that way it said davis is in a place of will for two reasons that case didn't involve the counter area the store it involved the whole separate office area the davis court held that although defendant made an on and authorized entry through the front door because community action to oppose a public defendant made an unauthorized entry through the doorway into leading into an obvious cluttered private office more importantly to space two employees testified that this was indeed private and the defendant didn't have authority to be in the room one of  the one of the employees that work there for ten years and said that no one had ever mistakenly entered that room before that's pretty strong evidence of what a reasonable person in this issue would think of as far as authorities entering this room  obvious the three qualifiers to rule seven a one is testimonies admissible this rationally based on the sense of the witness helpful to a clear understanding or determination of a fact an issue and not based on scientific technical or other specialized knowledge here maddox count on the video she's counting the cash the water cash the defendant later stole but the water cash itself was never shown on the video it was obstructed i think by a play on as far as the angle of the cameras concerned or maybe the computer monitor either way it's obstructed by the view as far as for where it's laying in the best and it could have been as far as maddox's testimony being valuable or probative it could have been in a bank bag it could have been points that she was counting quarter rolls it could have been too many bills that it wouldn't fit discreetly and defendant's right and there's multiple ways that the  s evidence was probative to the jury and it didn't invade the province of the jury because the the jury didn't see the op to want to cash in that state in the video as for foster's testimony it was a harmless error if anything he testified the two subject parts of his testimony that were in dispute here he testified that this office obviously wasn't open to the  public the more effective testimony in that realm where the two employees that specifically stated this office wasn't open to the public but already testified and one of them even saying that no one in her ten years that worked there had ever even mistakenly entered that room without authority so clearly foster's testimony saying the exact same thing but less effective didn't affect the outcome of the trial at all and the defendant auster also s definitive had something in his right hand when he left the office the video evidence briefly but clearly show that he did have something in his right hand more importantly the video also showed that he didn't have anything in his right hand when he entered the office that second time so again foster system only really didn't out come out affect the outcome of the proceedings in any way i also just remember best far as all of maddux's testimony was concerned i'm not exactly sure how the transcript read but i think it was a question of the state asking her if the object in defendant's right hand was consistent with the water cash and she confirmed that it was it was in a direct it was a problematic saying yeah and there's a defendant with the bottle cash that was counting she said it was consistent with the water cash that she had counted earlier again this probative because it could have been a huge bank bag could have been a little slip of a bank bag it could have been a bag points or whatever it wasn't it was consistent with the size and appearance of the water cash she was counting earlier as for the fourth issue sentencing argument supreme court castleberry recently abolish avoid essential fairness of a trial has been undermined this occurs only in situations which reveal breakdowns in the very system as distinct from pretty typical trial mistakes if anything this was a typical trial mistaken since in defend it to the current twelve year sentence for burglary take montgomery for example this court case the sensing error there actually prejudiced defendant defended the trial court in that case used the same great bodily harm for all three  the plane or analysis here defendant was not prejudiced at all he wasn't convicted of as a more serious crime but in serving any more prison time he concedes that this issue was forfeited didn't file it in  when the jury is hearing evidence they play certain degrees of weight based on the evidence that they're that they're here when you have an investigator coming in who is in the exact seems position as the jury someone who has just seen the same to you the jury as you just heard the same evidence of that the jury has and that investigator says oh you're in that room that's not open to the public that's an opinion that the jury is going to put the weight on to it's somebody that's looking at it from their  reasonable person in the force and situation thought and clearly he went to that room once earlier he didn't see any problem with going in and getting retraining his daughter from that room the mere fact that he went into it the second time there's no evidence in this case th demonstrates that he would have any reason to believe it was off limits to gertie the cash of the three i believe was three hundred three or three hundred dollars where in the following two nominations it was a stack that was half an inch thick i put three rubber bands on it and when i went back to my office later it wasn't there and then the jury can