find the defendant john mckay guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of aggravated criminal sexual d abuse while in a position of trust authority or supervision that is the sole issue before this court whether mr mickey was in a position of authority or supervision at the time that the sexual conduct occurred when the rule of law is clear is stated in the nd district case of people versus kaminski cited by both parties a defendant must hold the position of trust authority or supervision at the time of the offense nothing in the case law presented by the state suggests otherwise when viewing the evidence in its entirety no rational trier of fact could have found mr mickey guilty beyond a reasonable doubt twenty eight in illinois state high school association rules that a b indicated that trial if he was aware of prevented mr d mckee from being her coach d while she was in the interscholastic sack or that she was in the inner scholastic soccer in a bid february around the same time she stated d that her club soccer team at and it may be further testified that any sexual contact that she had with mr mickey was af he was no longer coaching her he was clearly no longer her coat in the last week of marks of twenty eight teams and no case law submitted by the state provides for the theory that a former coach remains in a position of trust authority or supervision for the balance of his or her life at one time mr mickey was awful ab's employer a b was employed at mr miki's accounting firm in the summer of two thousand and seventeen at that time she filled out time cards and received four paychecks in the spring of two thousand and eighteen while she may have stopped at his office one or two occasions the day presented absolutely no credible evidence support that supports the argument that a b work mickey in the last week of march of two thousand and eighteen or at any time in two thousand and a b stated in her testimony that she worked for mr mcgee in february and through march or april of twenty eight team and that she worked a couple nights a week paid well that's easy she wasn't paid because she wasn't working it's just another fabrication that came from her testimony there was no corroborating documentation or testimony from anyone at the accounting firm that they even saw her working there at all in two thousand and eighteen and you can be sure that there were plenty of employees working with delayed hours d during the tax season march t march of twenty eight seen at an accounting firm the office manager michelle pants did testify and she stated that she knew a b she saw a b working there in two thousand and seventeen and saw her there in january  february but doesn't know if she was working she never saw her there in march of two thousand and shelter and never saw a be there after mid february and tam sport every night until six or seven pm because it was taxis if a b was working at the accounting firm during tax season somebody would have testified that they knew knew she was there or even saw her working but there was not even any corroborating d testimony from ab's parents that she was working a b initially told investigators d in this case that she went to client meetings with mr mickey but then admitted that going to client meetings was a lie a lie that she told her parents when she went to mr miki's home there was no testimony from the parents that they were placing a b in mr miki's trust or care in march of two thousand and eighteen and no case law submitted by the state d provides for the theory that a former employer remains in a position of trust authority ringback or supervision for the balance of his or her life the trial court and this is the sense also had to consider the credibility of the witness and was in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses a b had no credibility as she was consistently impeached throughout the trial with prior statements that were not only inconsistent with her testimony at trial also inconsistent with each other aby story grew as she was telling ever changing stories throughout the investigation and up through the trial it went from initially kissing t then everything happened at mr mcgee's office then everything happened at his home then there was penetration and then there was ejaculation which she added two days before trial all during which time she had hired a civil attorney so that she could sue mr mickey and his business abs lack of credibility taints everything that she says the trial court considered this and remember ab's credibility was touched on and talked about in determining the motion for directed findings and count one through four as the trial judge pointed out there weren't just minor in consistencies in her testimony when the trial judge directed out the criminal sexual assault charges there were major inconsistences she is not to be believed mr mickey was also interviewed by investigators he went to their office voluntarily he told the investigators that at one time he did but he had hired a p to do some work at his accounting firm in two thousand and seventeen that he did attend the church or ab's father was a pastor and stated that he felt he violated their trust he pulled them that he had contact with a b and it all during spring break at the end of march two thousand eight hundred and eighty had cut came to his house during that week st on a monday it was during lunch hour nothing to do with work or the office they had lunch watched a movie started kissing and disrobed he never completely disrobe leaving his boxers and they kissed he touched her breasts with his hands and this occurred on two occasions that there was no sexual cut there was no sexual penetration there was sexual conduct he never told them that he was presently coaching her and he never told them that she was presently d working for him that at that time when looking at crossed your honour's you can violate someone's trust without being in a position of trust authority or supervision d as an example i could trust you to what might dog out at noon so i don't have to go home and do it and then you don't you may have violated my trust but that however does not put you in a position of trust over me i may trust your opinion on something but that doesn't but place you in that position of trust the prime example of being in a position of trust authority or supervision involves a babysitter or schools and school teachers the parents place their trust in that person who isn't responsible then for the care and supervision of their children mr mickey was not responsible for a b when she'd like to them about going to client meetings and went to his home to see him on a personal level and really we don't know what level of trust if any they have may have the parents may have placed in him at that time in march th the parents did not testify your honour's the case law is clear mr mcgee had to be in the position of trust authority or supervision d after the time of the sexual conduct by the end of march two thousand eight no longer her coat no longer her lawyer he went to church where ab's father was a pastor they were not close family friends it wasn't her babysitter being in a congregation is  him being a for her coat or a former employer is being a friend is not enough they were not close family friends like stated in people vs c corps cited by both parties just because you may trust someone it doesn't always automatically equate to placing them in a position of trust authority or supervision over someone at a particular time mr mickey was not in a position of trust supervision when a b lied to her parents about going to client meetings so that she could go d over to make mr mickey's home to during the last week of march of two thousand and eighteen because she wanted to see it was no testimony from eighty's parents  place their trust in mr making a arab or supervised his daughter when she told them she was working he was exercising no authority over eighty and he was not supervisor supervisor the relationship had changed after he was no longer her coach or employer the evidence presented in the trial court was so improbable or an satisfactory and it creates reasonable doubt mr miki's thank you maybe to establish their relationship correct yes i would agree with that and that this trust that was established with in fact recognized by the parent and being able to c that period of time in two thousand and seventeen that correct technically we don't know that because the parents didn't testify but that could be an assumption that someone like me ok all right and  the fact that in other words if if i say you tomorrow is your last day you're saying that it is right that if she works formant tomorrow is your last day good luck and go on forever i would approach somebody when they were six years old that doesn't mean that i'm still in a position of trust authority or cebu visions over them when they turn or grooming but i what i was referring to is isn't this trust that what we've talked about that existed in two thousand and seventeen that was developed over the past years the coaching still present in march of tw i don't believe it was there was no testimony from the  no credible evidence that a b worked for the defendant in two thousand and eighteen you said no documentation of this but in fact when you look at the record on one hundred and seventy three where the defendant and the techs thanks a b for working on a day in march of two thousand and eighteen and where a b response thank you for letting me work that she was in fact still employed by defendant wasn't he still that's a good question yes i would believe that the people i mean we have to look at it objectively era but it may be subjective of the person and then that person's testimony as to what their level of trust in somebody was and here didn't avy testify early extensively it she looked up to the defendant he was like a nd dad she trusted him i can't i don't have the transcript affirming but basically words to that effect yes she did ok and so if she held is trust how do we decide when that trust ended now when that in other words and that was probably an unfair question but here's my point  position of trust the coaching the employing you know the making of the team captain all of those things what him in a position that created this tru but would you agree that trust this is a feeling it is a perception that isn't ended with a bright line i would agree with that and my my point here is that there's really no testimony but that was still existing in march of two thousand and eighteen after their relationship had changed and she decided to lie to her parents to go to his home so they're all of her testimony we would look at that and say that all man's then not now or not you know i'm sorry not in march of twenty eight yes but as the case law of the way i interpret it says that it has to be at the time of the sexual conduct and the whole argument here on behalf of the appellant is that he wasn't that position at that time i of i i appreciate that if we were to take the position that trust is a subjective determination would we view it then from avi's perspective you could and then also looking at also her credibility and just the objective perspective as well and what anyone else may have said about it a b said that she did for us to him she did look to them as a mentor because he was a coach and because he was or employer but that was all stated i believe in the past tense and so was he in the vet position then in march of two thousand and eighteen i don't believe so should we view this issue of trust on a case by case basis yes what factors should we consider in determining when and when trust existed and or when and what should we be looking for well the facts of the case itself like in this one of the right facts that at one time prior to their relationship changing he did in fact coach d her he did in fact supervise her at work and it's at that time and none of that was occurring at the time that the relationship had changed and the conduct occurred so again you're you are coming back to and i appreciate your position that when the coaching stops when the employment stops and assuming for the sake of argument here my or the point of my question that all ended before the beginning of march then beat as the position that created the trust is no longer there so a spontaneous trusts evaporates i believe it can yes it's a case by case like you had indicated but then here should we consider the closeness of the positions in other words he was not a coach for a couple of years he was her coach like forever she made her the captain he had daily contact with her at least during soccer season that he took her on as an intern which he'd never done for any other student so should we consider all of those factors there dan taking i'm sorry for example the length of time that he held those positions yes those are all considerations that i believe the court do consideration but again all of that changed after he was no longer working for him no longer was being coached by him there the nature of everything changed i mean they were friends and friends of friends can be friends without being in a position of trust provisional authority over each other all right you know again  sweet generous and that each one should be decided on their own facts would you agree with that yes and that the burden of proof insofar as a stablish a prejudicial error you have to establish that not rational trier of fact would find your client guilty of a breach of trust is that correct yes how do you respond to his statement to your client statement that he breached his trust or maybe  reiterate what he literally said and then explain how a rational trier of fact would not take that into consideration and give it a substantial amount of weight based upon what it appears to be a student mission against interest yes it could be the trust that they had in him when he coached her or when she worked for him but he was no longer coaching her or she was no longer working for him at that time we don't know specifically what trust was being referred to or what a b parents may have placed in him they never testified and it wasn't asked mr mayor as to what specifically meant by it that's how you pronounce your name yes your honor you may proceed thank you thank you good morning counsel an honorable justices again my name is amy with her i'm an assistant state for me with each county on behalf of the people position of trust authority or supervision in relation to the victim of a b at the time the sexual conduct occurred and under the column standard this court should make the same finding and affirm the judgment below when this court decision a trial court that below examines the totality of circumstances it will find that it shows that the that the trust developed by the defendant with the victim over the course of approximately seven years beginning when she was approximately eleven or twelve years old did not dissipate from january to may of two thousand and eighteen which was her senior year in high school simply because the defendant may was no longer officially her sac or coach and may or may not have still his employer by defendant's logic there would be no trust relationship between the defendant and the victim in this case between january and may of her junior year of high school of her sophomore year of high school or her freshman year of high school simply by virtue of the fact that she was participating in interscholastic soccer versus travel soccer during those months it's very clear from this record that the relationship of trust that was built by the defendant with the victim over the course of seven years continued after the soccer season of her the travel season of her senior year and that the defendant explained it exploited the trap court a noted that athletes coached by someone for especially in the case of extensive coast coaching over a number of years develop trust both on and off the field and under the facts of this case as just as your honorable justices have noted we look at all the circumstances the unique circumstances of every case i do believe this is a few ija nearest type of examination the fact that the defendant employed this victim at his at his accounting firm for a period of time and admit that she was the only soccer player that he ever coached that he ever employed at his firm so we have that additional fact we also have the family friendship that developed in part by defendant taking his own and as the fisa court court noted the legislature in crafting this statute and making carving out this element of this offense for aggravated criminal sexual abuse noted sought to prevent burden of meeting that element in this case and i would point out as we did in our brief that the trial court made extensive findings at the time of motion for active finding reiterated those findings that the close of evidence in the finding of guilt and then also rejected the same arguments were raised in a motion for new trial in so far as defendant claims that the state's position suggests that once in a position of trust as a stablished that it continues for the balance may have a more definitive end date as defendant suggested however under the facts of this particular case where we have supervision of forty and trust going out at the same time and then we have a continued communication and relationship between the defendant and the victim via text messaging text messages that make it clear as this court is pointed out that the defendant said thank you for working today and the victim responded thank you for letting me work office make it clear that in this particular case under the facts the relationship of trust continued the defense is very critical of the victim's credibility in this case in this appeal and i would questions from the court and dependence relationship in the march of twenty eight team that amounts to trust authority or supervision when the sexual abuse happened well i think it's clear from the record that they continued to her future aspirations to play soccer the there were additional text messages as i pointed out related to work there were i don't to things like so glad we waited happiest person in the world i think there's a clear sexual connotation to that but i think it also is is showing the pattern of behavior in the continued relationship  i'm not sure i understand the question if i do agree with the defense that there has to be under the statute or into the case law that there has to be that position of trust authority or supervision in relation to the victim at the time of the sexual contact   position of trust in the story continued to exist at the onset of the sexual activity in this case i would say that the continued dialogue the community the communications between a seventeen year old and a forty nine year old texting and face timing both on the sexual nature in the sharing of pictures of the sharing of live video of the discussion the victim body specifically her abdomen i would say that you know the personal questions about the trusting him to guide her on her training that would be an example the evidence showing that she would sit with the when st when no one else was home certainly a bunches of trust between the two of them those would be some examples from the record i think in addition to as i said the trial court lays out extensively at the time of the mo same as a descendant in a position of trust i think that i think that the way the statute is worded he holds a position of trust in relation to the victim so  if we were to just let's say for the sake of argument take out the other to just jump in the authority or supervision which as i know i note in our brief we don't concede that we do we do maintain that there was some element of authority and supervision but if for the sake of argument we were to take that out and just read hold the position of trust in relation to the victim i would say that largely what what your honor was discussing with opposing counsel that you when you look at the at the facts of the case and you look at the history the longstanding history of of the position that the defendant held in the victim's life which was that  longstanding coach longstanding family friend you know not as longstanding but an employer that that he still make nothing to change nothing about that position with respect to their relationship point is he stops employing her he stops holding her isn't that the purpose of this statute no one that i knew used to be my coach there still be a i think that it was someone who coached let's say a child for one season when that child was a leaven and then didn't have any contact with that person for several years and then encountered that that child a little bit later let's say when she was in high school we would have a completely different situation but by virtue of his position in her life as which is informed by the fact that he did serve as her coach and serve as her boss but even by by virtue of that his position and his relation to her family the position of being in her life as a trusted family friend well done it's a position of trust between the defendant and the not a position of trust between the defendant and her family correct all of this crap of her family is really but i don't think it's completely irrelevant i think that i agree with you that it isn't it is the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victim that is that issue under the statute i think that  authority or position of trust someone who would become a perpetrator but once there will be perpetrator is no longer supervising you have authority over you you are in a position of of this case as the trial court found and it was a reasonable finding that the defendant still maintained a position of trust within the legislatures and tense again drawing from the language of i believe in the core and and a school district and did not and the victim was a student in that school district even though there was no direct she did she was i think a cheerleader and he was a boy's track coach or something like that but he was in a position that would be that would cause seven children to trust him and this defendant by virtue even by virtue of again looking at the totality of their relationship and the fact that he was still coaching her and giving her and giving her advice and there's evidence that he was also still employing her albeit off the books at his firm and having her come to the office it was still in a position of trust with this  think judge the mr mickey it may have even trusted a b enough to make her a coach or a captain but that doesn't establish him as a position of trust authority or supervision after all of that he was not in a position of trust authority or supervision at the time in march of two thousand and eighteen when she came over to his home there's no testimony that he told her to come over that he forced her to come over but he said she had to come over that she had to kiss him there was no testimony that it was his idea that they that it was his idea that they disrobed this was all mutual between the two of them it was not in a position of trust of forty or supervision in the end of march two thousand continuing quote quote constant training mentoring for physical strength for her continued soccer correct yes just because he asked him  is there any training i could do to help me with this doesn't place him in a position of trust the board your supervisor i could google what additional exercises should i do for soccer or to participate in a particular type of event and the answers that i get don't put the person who gave those answers in a position of trust authority or supervision over me or even to make them my coach mentoring he may have been giving her advice but that doesn't make him a coach ok fair enough or not thanks thank you thank you i have no further