may please the caller counsel i intend to focus my argument on the st two i mean this in our brief today the state's failure to prove intent in the aggravated kidnapping counts inside her testimony is that she turned around and locked mr rest out and you're saying that that begs the kidnapping charge that they've made i believe the kidnapping charge being made is based on the fact that was that he wanted to get diverted me to open the back i wouldn't open for him he wanted me to get into the back to help him get to the money and that's really what this was all baath and i think if he still had a mission which was to get the money in the back room and be because crew has had a you know they had apparently some sort of secret door there to for situations i guess apparently like this she was says anything about river it would have been much more convenient for me had he said i have a ruler here and i'm measuring this knife and it's three exactly three inches but i think the natural and really only logical  of his words this night is exactly three inches long i think the any inference you can draw from that is that he measured it how he measured it we don't know and that of course is part of the problem here but the fundamental knife in the absence of any proof of the length of the knife at trial i think back to be an issue now that's a funny choice your words because they're rare as proof of the state needs to introduce expert opinion and the length of things we know that isn't it isn't it that we end the ordinary now like you are the knowledge of an ordinary person if you think on the scale of exactly three inches if you used to if you used the wrong if you're measuring now from the base of the plate but from some other point deep you know the investigation itself is a problem but it's the investigation on behalf of the state after the close of the evidence if it were done on the defense of the that's true  then an investigation when somebody takes the instrument to figure that out now from their own eyes ears and so forth their own senses but from a and this are meant to determine that but that's one of the elements of the crack it's near it's neat closest analogy i have not i cannot find any case law which comes close to right occurred in this to give you if i may approach with that the plate is so apparently the blade was taken out in regard to their chairs and the jets of the blade in this of this knife is exactly three inches long that doesn't sound like he was assessing sounds like he was investigated did you see any cases because there are there are some pieces that the court determining whether it's eighteen inches or you know your honor i did not find those cases and you know and i realize now of course morning your honour's may please the court again i have assistant state's attorney secor slavens never present the people of the state of illinois defendant was properly convicted at his bench trial because his conduct was as sufficiently distinct to support separate convictions and so the court did not abandon its role as a neutral overture in this case this court should affirm the friend's convictions for aggravated kidnapping and armed violence for the following reasons st the people prove elements including intent to establish that defendant transported the victims with the intent to secretly confined them fine ok so that looks to transportation from one place to another in this case as the record demonstrated defendant transported st accept the minor victim from the front lobby force him into the private enclosed rear and it might be fair to speculate that defend his intention was to rescue got in there to that drop the currency exchange but regardless of what his adamant good was he did still transport these two individuals with an intent to secretly c many more miles or in most of those cases of smiles are not no cases i saw was as little movement as this one where the people actually would cause the concerned a longer distance than a few feet or one room to another but the s t m for the same proposition that it is well established in illinois a wall there is no minimum duration no minimum distance acquired to establish force carries another from one place to another with intent to secretly confine their other person against his or her will all this was the will of the vic under illinois law secret confinement is defined as isolating an individual for meaning for contact with the public and astronomers can observe the evidence on the videos that bathroom has no windows it is recessed that in this case the reason that she wasn't you know for example tied up or for something back there was because she fought him off and defended should not rebut benefit because he was ultimately threaded in his efforts he brought them from a public area he isolated them intentionally at knifepoint in the recessed private area of the currency exchange where there's no windows no other doors no opportunity for her to communicate her plight or communicate with the reasonable to assume he was trying to rob place and he didn't want to be caught but then that just circles back to keep brought them back there because he did not want them alerting the police perhaps all this is circumstantial evidence of the fact finder considered and found that intent was proven beyond a not there are sufficient independent acts defendants brief arise extensively on whether or not she might have been used to access some money in there but as judge jaime correctly noted there is no evidence in the record that such participation was necessary and that certainly doesn't speak to the kidnapping of the minor child here except the certainly there was no use for him in the arm for on the record she testified that c c thirty three that defendant pushed her inside so she could get in and open the door for him and then selling it kidnapping that sounds like part of the attempt to thread wrap the  established the circumstantial evidence if you're honest i'm sort of the video that area is private there's no windows it was she's isolated from the opportunity to communicate her plight that is secret confinement and the video establishes the circumstantial her superior knowledge of the layout of the building did work to her advantage but that doesn't necessarily speak to defense intent in trying to remove her from a public area of worship perhaps signal for help to a private area where she had no opportunity to do so but she did the video evidence demonstrates the entire front lobby of the building was on a course or with windows up probably visible to the public floor ceiling windows so in that sense she had the opportunity to gesture to wave to establish some sort of public wrong factor to perhaps be considered off i don't know if it's referenced in the brief but i know there's at least one illinois case that referenced the fact that because it's something occurred in the lobby it was not secret confinement because she was visible she could communicate her plight but again in this case the evidence is much more clear from the video that the front area was public library is private and felt it was forcing them into this private hidden area and that is circumstantial evidence of inten the fact finder consider this evidence and found the element proven beyond a reasonable doubt and a reason the fact finder could certainly do so again turning next to the issue of the nice in evidence here it's important to remember the procedural setting that we're out here in that defendant do not object to this at trial and because of that we don't have the sort of clear record that would demonstrate what occurred a lot of the questions presented by the court earlier go to we assume we infer we don't know what happened and the reason we don't know what happened is because defendant failed to object improperly preserve this issue we do we do know  no one can say exactly in a small pocket knife some things exactly maybe it could have been a quarter of an inch smaller we don't know but the jazz is making that determination that it would be honor st the difference between you know of a physical dimension and a weight or a or chemical property or something like that is that some of this is the subject of expert testimony and the and the other is not and fully restored in the way my hypothetical is it has to be proven at trial if this is a helmet of the crime which it is our rules provide that the state has the burden of proving  fair how is that due process how does that comport with a fair trial where your honor this circles back again to the for the st issue i was going to bring up in that on this standard or if you had a bench trial the best position to determine what was said what was meant that was intended and with respect to displaying the knife which was probably emitted evidence and is a physical object is evidence of itself the inference is the judge may the testimony that it freshens that she showed four inches yes the director does indicate he made that statement that the record does not indicate is that the judge did anything explicitly improper and that is the burden really determine whether or not an error occurred is whether or not there is a need for affirmative evidence in the record demonstrating that improper evidence was considered and the reason we don't have that circles back to there was no objection there is nothing in this record from which we can infer a measurement occurred at all every number is the knife was displayed by the prosecutor and the judge made a statement and that's not ignoring them we know the blade was displayed by the press so that's different and the judge of the blade even though this knife is exactly three inches long yes and that is that the record affirmatively demonstrates and to  them we're not having to nd guess what occurred from silence and furthermore even to the extent that any measurement might have occurred and we don't concede one did it's very hard to illinois law that judges may soon respond to develop the record within their product if because their goal is to ensure that justice is done and they are allowed to do service so long as they remain fair impartial so the knife is just it's a knife it's a blade and it is a certain length and that is either more or less than three inches to why can't the judge take the big of a controlled substance and measure with a bit bring bring me in the most technical machine and he can measure or she can measure what's the difference it could be really twenty years old in the this is where the you know no no your honor that we don't know here and that circles back to the fundamental initial step failing in that the record does not demonstrate that if anything occurred beyond the knife and the bleeping i'll be displayed and the judge making a statement and to establish that an error occurred here requires mirror than just speculating from the sides of the record the defendant must establish with affirmative evidence in the record the all speculation that improper evidence was considered to find that the that the judge did not consider the proper this and that is not satisfied here and if there are no further questions then we would night believe the record speaks and it says this plate is exactly three inches long and i don't believe it's a reasonable inference i think you can reasonably infer that that statement is the result of evidence for the state after the close of evidence abandoning his role as a neutral arbiter well but if we took their doubt all the record says is the victim saying it was this big state saying let the record