difficult and any risk that derrick's and prosecution would be compromised by c is false information was nonexistent and this is particularly the case where his own prosecution this isn't a trap because you know you follow so you know you know you know that well i guess it depends on the definition of how your honour's or any court wants to define is the police already knew and have the evidence of effects and nothing the defendant told them actually hinder not binding on this court in terms of what elements are necessary to be proved in order to convict the defendant of obstructing justice who had furnished false information to the police with intent to obstruct the the prosecution of a person quote obstructs and quotes the peace officer of strikes means that there has to be an imposition of an obstacle impeding or hindering the the peace officers performance of out of authorized duties so the penalty is tied to defendant who obstructs the officer requiring actual obstruction thereby he can be guilty without actually struck think that's a different crime whereas baskerville also mentions that section thirty one dash for target a specific contains an element of obstruction however thirty one dash or is different because it actually defines what is obstructing conduct what is obstructing justice in terms of furnishing false information and thereby making for seeing false information a per se actual interference with the administration of justice and that's the reason why it was reversed because the supreme court of only found out that there was not insufficient critic actually concealed the crack pipe within meaning of the statute and the only reason why they got that reasonable is because they narrowly construed the term conceal so if i lie about my whereabouts even though my whereabouts have absolutely no bearing on whether my  how does that obstruct his prosecution well it's in terms of what's in what's could be reasonably inferred from the evidence and my recollection is that the the interview the defendant knew during the interview that the police had already gotten essentially mr harrison however by saying that he was not at all with their knowing that confession involved their extensive claim that dirksen was with the defendant the night of the told police about burglarizing this residence with the defendant cannot be true because if there is an if defendant was not there because he has an alibi somewhere else that would mean that their son lied to police and that confession is not going to help him get prosecuted for crimes because false confessions do happen for various reasons and one could be that the here the police officer also knew that the car belonged to derek's and fiance who could be a potential night but the police officer doesn't really know that to be true that's just what he's heard from whit and then terrace and claims that he was with the defendant and the defendant says no i wasn't with eriksen because i've got an alibi go talk to my roommates and go talk to his ex girlfriend and those situations the cop is going to not be confident that he's prosecuting terrorists and has the right what is the right thing to do because he's got to go refute that alibi the wild goose chase that bennett sent them on having gone to talk to two different sets of witnesses there by his alibi undercuts the prosecution of barracks and just as that with his own and the fact that the jury reached a seemingly inconsistent bernick's on this evidence should be attributed more to lenity or story a compromise hype situation not the taylor as being unproved when it's not even an element of proof it wasn't something the jury was instructed about and it's not should not be recognized the salafi these reasons but this  however the section from co manage actually says that in acting section thirty one dash where the legislature intended it does not say that in order to get a conviction under section thirty one dash for that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt legislature intended if that were really the case then also the supreme court of illinois would have to say is this elements not contained in the legislative tax but we're going to recognize that this is an additional third element of this crime wasn't met here so therefore we're going to reduce reverse this conviction instead what they did is they said we're going to merely construe what it means to conceal physical evidence here he say didn't prove that he quote concealed physical evidence thereby we reversed his conviction so it is a totally separate conviction to said it says you're creating a legal or not to me anomaly that's not true because the distinction in common is was was important they rejected the state's construction of concealment because it would have made of structuring justice out of every professor offense  contraband was not in plain view that's the reason for the narrow construction there the defendant hasn't offered a single reason why a similar limitation should be applied to the phrase furnishing false information instead the state cites vic sherry definition of completed crime taylor is incorrect in saying that this should have been charged and taylor and that this crime in the court of the defendant here should be in charge of the intent because there's no completed offense without the false information maturely impeding that's their position that's the position of taylor but just like the bribery analysis in wallace this court should recognize that community offense and of course taylor cited some other cases where there were conviction for power for attempted obstruction of justice that's not relevant because an attempt crime can be charged as an attempt even if it's actually a completed crime it doesn't have to be an incomplete crime in order to be prosecuted and convicted and upheld as an attempt crime so the fact that some other previous cases the taylor cites were multiple trips out to go interview witnesses this is this is not simply a situation where the police officer knew the defendant and there was really no extra even a minute or two and delaying the rest that was tailor comics they recognize that obstruction of justice is actually an attempt type of crime even though you know so it's not a situation where this is a a not a completed offense where if section justice is defined in a way that comp paul the conviction and with respect to the sensing issue i like to briefly note that in light of the abolition of the point sensing doctrine from the state does not any longer suggest that  don't believe it was supported by the record but i think the defendant points out that's not completely affirmatively conclusively supported by the record that the defendants should have have mandatory consecutive sentences because he was out on bail when he committed another that in terms of defense lately thanks to criminal history supporting the finding the consecutive terms necessary to protect the public from further crimes committed by the defendant so for those reasons is where it should affirm and entertain and your very briefly the court income eyes found that the defendant did not conceal the evidence even though he attempted to conceal the evidence and they found that because his attempts at concealing court's summary of what they're the legislature is intent was they've had five years to think that you can make clear that that's not what they intended or they intended to  soon and then regarding our second argument