instruction based on people the hollands which stated simply the legal age of consent for sexual conduct is seventeen years of age the defense objected to this not i p i instruction and the court overall gave the objection and then also gave i p i instruction regarding the definition of consent along with some essential salt sexual penetration of course the nine i p i and the i p i definition of sexual contact but promote such assault was the only charge the state only made two counts the same offense and so consent as defined by the i p s is a really voluntarily given agreement clarify or tell the jury that he was wrong it doesn't help one way or the other and there's no authority for an invited error there that mr holloway was testifying on his behalf about you know definition of consent and the nine i p i was misleading confusing and contradicted what the plain meaning of consent was and age here is irrelevant to consent because those and so here there's not n p i instruction prohibited the jury from being able to decide this contested element and mr holloway should have a chance to have a jury the easiest way to dispose of this jury instruction issue it was clearly harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt there were three elements the state treated these elements separate throughout the whole case they presented evidence on each element separately the only element really in dispute your use of force as it's as i cited toros proving the element of force implicitly shows non consent of course it's common sense of somebody being forced to do here however it was it doesn't matter because i am testified only did she not consent she was forced into the sexual penetration defendant testified the exact opposite not only did he not force or she was a willing participant so clearly the jury had to pick between these two stories they found a more credible which is their right to do they were in the best position to evaluate credibility of am and defendant here there was there was simply no there was no possibility of a different outcome if this instruction wasn't given or was given if she was six or ninety six years old she testified that not only was she not of age she testified she didn't actually her on the issue of whether the sex was for the jury was properly instructed on use of force they were properly instructed that each of these elements need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt the use of force was the one indisputable defendant said i didn't i didn't force her to do this she consented she said i was forced into this that is the that's the key dispute in this case not whether she was young too young  no you can't do that he says age is put into the statute for release i hear it's a little bit different but that state charge class one but then they managed to prove their class one by submitting instruction which pertains only to the class two which pertains to the age that's why i think it is similar to why and that if we adopt your argument  because of the court they may have but how do we know that because the jury was improper struck well the jury the jury was properly instructed on the use of force and they heard they found that i am story was credible and they were improperly instructed on and sent i would i would say argue that they weren't because i don't see how a thirteen year old can consent to sexual activity in the state of illinois at the very argument we may  well the supreme court the the the holding and what was that the willingness of the minor victim to engage in sexual conduct or even solicit the act is irrelevant enough not a defense i didn't say they didn't this jury instruction was improper is that implicitly holding a thirteen year old can consent in sexual activity which is simply not the case now in no way however this is a big red herring this is not the point this is not the reason defendant was convicted here the reason different it was convicted is because of the use of force again i would submit that i don't know why there's not an aggravated criminal sexual assault statute for victims and between thirteen and seventeen like the criminal sexual abuse however that's the way it is right now i actually wrote an article about changing that but the point is so because definit used force here that element that's taken from them even if we assume it sounds like we're suing that this is air here there simply the outcome of the proceedings there's no way it would have been different with the use of force the way that was the element that the jury had on use of force they had to decide whether am was forced into this sexual penetration or whether they believe defendant that he was a willing consent goes along with whichever story they believe the outcome of the proceedings would not have been different if this instruction was given a prescription wasn't given if the instruction if she was ninety six or six years old it doesn't matter she testified that he forced her into the sexual penetration he testified that she was a willing participant in the use of force is the ultimate process of this case there's no outcome  have been different if this instruction wasn't given the defendant believed that she was forced into this so of course they believe that she didn't consent this is a classic harmless error cases harmlessly on the reasonable doubt because there's just no way a jury i would agree that this is superfluous element however it doesn't change the analysis in this case as for the critical issue there simply wasn't a letter saying my counsel was no good in fact defendant doesn't even mention his counsel at all in this statement about future most of his statement allocution is based on him still professing his innocence it's basically a closing argument he does say a couple things that i guess could be construed as him being dissatisfied with counsel however it's not trial courts obligation to connect these dots especially when counsel isn't mentioned at all in fact it would be improper for the trial court to sort of fashion an ineffect argument based on defendant just saying my case wasn't presented well you very well could have meant that the witnesses didn't testify the way you wanted to we could have been talking about he wasn't this fat if i was his own the money that he gave it's a minimal to more than one this was nothing but a ball the only nation in fact if you can even call it that because the council is not mentioned at all so clearly pursuant to taylor and hadn't both cited in my brief  outcome is possible besides a guilty verdict for definitive based on the evidence presented whether this instruction was given or not ok i thank you very much mr mcneil do you have any ability on the element of consent or force and you know that i p i said you know they don't have to be a verbal or physical resistance to prove it works and so you have to look at