defendant intentionally caused any injury to a person within a glowing place before a conviction can follow at issue in this appeal is whether psychological injury can constitute can meet the any injury requirement of the home invasion statute based on the legislative history of the statute as well as the case precedent that requires a physical injury to meet the showing of any injury william hudson would ask this court to find that only a physical injury and not a psychological injury constitutes the predicate injury for a home there's a couple reasons your honor we there were conflicting accounts of what actually happened in the house with with the encounter between the defendant and miss walker and so it comes down to a credibility determination that w was where's the conflicting evidence right it's conflicting evidence and the victim testified that the defendant entered the home and physically assaulted her in the kitchen a little factual background might be helpful in the case if i may this is this about a case where the defend a very intoxicated and high on cocaine hits list as a prostitute to perform a sex act in a dog house in quincy illinois the prostitute removed his pants took his money from those pants and ran mr hudson not knowing where the prostitute went but believing she went into a residence followed her into what he believed into the residence that he believed she had fled his account of what happened was he was running through the house chasing the prostitute when the lights  caused if the jury in fact believed miss walker regarding the evidence of the physical injuries then those are in contradicted what ends up being contradicted in this case is whether those injuries were intentionally caused or not under the statute i would argue that the injuries are required to be intentionally caused both under the statute in the legislative history referencing the statu finding of the jury that it distinguished if it all between physical and psychological it did not the jury issued a general verdict why then following up on justice freeman's question do we necessarily have to reach the issue of psychological injury in this case because there was a physical injury and the jury heard the case and made a decision yes you have to remanded back down the reason for that is we don't know that the jury even broached the topic of whether there was sufficient injury in this case may have frequently happens with a job or exceed i'm sorry frequently happens with the general verdict when there's two basis that that could be the basis of the go but the defense in this case is arguing that one of those is invalid and so it's very possible that the jury just consider the invalid basis of guilt and kind of took the path of least resistance based on the testimony that the emotional testimony that was presented at trial face you're basing that on the jury instruction right let's crap in the jury instruction talk about both physical and emotional injury that's sustain a verdict just based on physical injury alone what difference does it make that the jury instruction talked about the most it matters in that we don't know if the jury actually considered the evidence of physical harm it's possible that they just may have heard the testimony about the emotional injury and thought hey we don't have to resolve the credibility conflict here based between the defendant's version of events and miss walker's version of events it's possible that they just said you know we heard the testimony about how the girl was upset when it happened is an issue of waiver because of amounts to plain error in this case it's very possible that there is a due process violation if indeed psychological injury was not contemplated by the statute and that was the basis with which he was convicted then the defendant would be convicted upon a grounds not contemplated by the statute and not made illegal by the statute so the possibility of him being convicted for something is not prohibited by law as a due process violation and we will not know whether there is indeed a due process violation until we remained to the trial court and order that he be retried only with joint structures regarding the physical aspect of the injury well just  i'm sorry any and i believe the state and i have i have several responses i guess to that i believe the state was referencing a point that was raised in the initial brief in this case where we pointed out that because the home invasion statute is under the bodily harm and therefore i don't think it's i don't think it follows i don't think the state's argument follows that because there are other harms that don't encompass physical harm and i think that we're talking about the insulting of provoking of the battery statute  believe that's the what you're referencing just because in the bodily harm section the battery statute allows for insulting them provoking harm i don't mean i don't think means that there are but the legislature intended for both psychological harm and physical harm to qualify as the predicate any injury and in the home invasion statute even if we were to disagree with you on that point yes we find psychological harm as a predicate for home invasion isn't it also your position that the evidence in this case does not is not sufficient to establish psychological that's correct and lacks expert testimony that's correct we want to touch on that as well the reason for that position is and a lot of what is especially in the reply brief comes from the legislative history that has been included in appended to the reply brief where the common theme running throughout the legislative that even physical pain constitutes an injury for the home invasion statute i think that the intent of the legislature is that there has to be son physical manifestation of the pain in this case however if the court disagrees with that i don't believe the legislature was trying to legislate an offense this being the home invasion and punish that with a classic phony because someone was merely scared i think there has to be some sort of standard where an expert witness testifies  there was actually an injury suffered here some sort of emotional injury and i would distinguish this case from the fourth district's case of people versus eric which is the one case with the psychological injury as it is permissible under the home invasion statute in that case there was actually a seven year old girl who a home invader and she covered her mouth the girl was suffered from sleeplessness not believe they said had some depression and some anxiety there was actually a psychiatrist or some sociologist that interviewed her in that case and explicitly testified not only that she had suffered i believe it was an acute post traumatic stress disorder but also that was a result of the physical contact that she had had the defendant and in this case there's absolutely no showing that beyond being scared as i would like any of us would be if we were involved at home station that miss walker had any sort of psychological injury is i would argue would be required of the statute if this court found that psychological injury was included we would have to correct and i would argue yes that there has to be something beyond the testimony of a mom in the girl i believe that the court that the fourth district in eric is persuasive of that point there was actually a psychiatrist or sociologist there that a rm the fact that the girl had suffered an emotional injury based on the testimony in this case we don't know if miss walker was just scared and that's why she was suffering from the actual is there testimony in the record  was scared to go in her kitchen when it was dark that she had difficulty sleeping at night and i believe that she isolate yourself occasionally in her bedroom so it really does come down to whether that injury in the home invasion statute uses the term any injury in the statute does not refer to psychological injury because only appellate courts have to find any injury requirement different it's safe to say that that language is and big u s number one that means that it needs to be construed in favor of the defendant and number two we can look at the legislative history to try and determine what the legislature was intending by using that language well the building a home invasion statute the legislature spoke in terms of hypothetical situations immigration statute was passed i believe approximately a year after the class x felony designation was passed so the legislature was curious how a home invasion and the elements of a home invasion fit into what they had legislated involving the class x does a nation during that discussion they use terms such as attacks pummels and physically destroys terms that generally mean some sort of ominous physical injury further as i said earlier the classic phony doesn't nation has traditionally been left to only injuries that have a physical manifestation and not an emotional manifestation and that set forth in the defense reply pretty further during the debates there were several more senators who voiced their opinion that home invasion should not be a class x felony some showing that an injury was caused by the use of a deadly weapon now i think that's precise to show that they were intending for emotional injury that there had to be some sort of physical manifestation while that didn't end up in the statute i think it is persuasive the statements brief argues that the legislature's use of the word any evidence isn't the legislature's intent to mean just that any sort of injury whether it's physical psychological emotional or otherwise this is consistent with the fourth district reasoning but the fourth district conflicts with the legislative history that shows that the legislature was not contemplating a psychological injuries psychological is not even mentioned in the legislative bates with the exception of one mention i believe someone says  we all know the if the psychological effect that a home invasion has on a neighborhood absent that reference there's absolutely no indication that they even contemplated psychological emotional or any other sort of emotional injury you  the jury in this case has issued general verdict and was not required to specify what grounds they convicted found it it's very possible that they after hearing evidence regarding the psychological injury decided that that was the path of least resistance and don't even consider evidence of a intentional physical injury we have no way of knowing that whether they did they did determine that there was proof of it intentionally caused physical injury  extent of the injury or the defendant it intentionally did that it was something in the testimony conflicts between what the defendant stated happened and what the victim stated happened the state argue so any error was harmless because the jury found that resemblance of physical harm but there still remains a question of credibility between the defendant and the victim that being what actually happened in the kitchen that day and that's a determination of this court has traditionally left to the finder of fact and that's why we're arguing that that they believe that a jury would be inclined to believe the victim's statement they didn't give any indication why they thought that was or they thought that the defendant was less credible than the victim was so i don't know why they made that determination that is correct it please the court my name is aaron o'connell and assistant attorney general and i'm here in behalf of the people the state of illinois the issue that's presented in this case is much narrower than the defendant has suggested th remains a credibility determination to be made on remain and however that is simply not the case the jury in this case was instructed that it should either find that the defendant intentionally caused a psychological injury or it should find that the defendant intentionally caused a physical injury the jury resolved the credibility issue in the record and held that the defendant intentionally caused whatever injury it found that the defendant suffered so therefore it's just not open to question as to which of the two versions of events the jury rested its verdict on the two versions of the events were directly contradictory the victim in this case testified that the defendant when he entered her house  her across the room saw her terrified and at that point came across the room and grabbed her shoulder so roughly that election abrasion and then grabbed ahold of her hair and tried to pull her out the door by a hair th defendant in this case gave three versions of the events to which contradict the victim's testimony first i'd just like to emphasize that in his initial statement to the police he gave a version that was exactly what the victim testimony was and admitted that he had in fact tried to drag her outside of her kitchen however at the defense subsequently gave two more self serving versions of events the first was a week after he had given his original statement when he volunteered to speak again with police detectives and at that time he explained that he when he saw the victim and he saw that she was doing she was terrified he went up to her to comfort her accidentally injuring her shoulder and pulling here at trial he gave another story in which he said well actually when i went into the house if the victim and i were coming at each other i raise my arm and to prevent us from colliding and accidentally at that point i injured your shoulder and pull your hair the jury in this case necessarily rested its product because it adopted the victim's version of events and the version that the defendant initially told police detectives so the only issue to be resolved in this case is whether the verdict in this case can stand if the injury that the jury found the defendant suffered was psychological trauma resulting  has suggested that in the case that it was a verdict resting on psychological trauma that he isn't titled to reversal of his conviction the defendant is incorrect and has made misstatements of the law in his reply brief and i'd like to clarify the legal framework that this claim should be assessed under and i apologize it is it is fairly complicated but it's important step for the framework and the key case in this is clear from the united states which is the most recent supreme court case to discuss the issue in griffin the supreme court explains its previous holdings in stromberg and it was concerned with a verdict we are one of two alternative theories presented to the jury was found to be unconstitutional and how that in that case was not possible to tell if the verdict rested on unconstitutional ground on the right it cannot stand that doctrine simply is not applicable here because the defendant is not suggesting that there was any unconstitutionality to the to the theories presented to the jury the court in good from the united states then went on to explain its holding in gates it expressed some disapproval of the broad holding that gates suggests but it clarified that brought to case was concerned about is when two theories are presented to the jury and one of them is found to be legally insufficient a misstatement of a statutory principle then in some in some instances there is a need for a reversal of the conviction however there are limitations to that rule that i'm going to come back to in a second place and then dealt with the situation in which the two alternatives that were presented to the jury were both legally sufficient however the facts presented to the jury could not support of verdict on one of the two theories that was presented but it made absolutely clear that in that case the conviction must stand if one of the two theories is supported by the facts of the case that means that if defining is correct that the people feel to present sufficient evidence of psychological trauma his running nevertheless must stand because there is clear abundant evidence of a physical injury in this case now i wan come back to what are the limitations on the yates principle and these are set forth in people he could have been an illinois case in that case the court held that the yates principle is limited by the harmless error doctrine this means that where one of the two alternatives presented to the jury is legally insufficient defendant cannot obtain a reversal of his conviction if the error in the instructions was harmless again this is resolved by the fact that the evidence in the record of physical injury was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to establish that the defendant injured the victim and again as i've discussed there is just no dispute as to what injuries a defendant cause he eat he then attempted to drag her outside the kitchen by her hair but he doesn't dispute that he did her through doing that and that it in the victim testified that she experienced significant pain and probably from th contact with the defendant and then finally the jury was presented with evidence as a victim suffered from a finger injury the defense the victim explain this injury by she had to grab ahold of the door as the defendant was trying to drag her out of the kitchen by her hair and when she did that she her pinky finger and there was supporting testimony from the mother that the pinky was swollen the defendant's version of events did not explain how this injury could have come about but he also could not explain why the victim would have ended up with a finger injury given his live in contact that he had with the victim so in this case even if the defendant were to prevail under either of the arguments that he's presented the legal argument the statute does not encompass psychological harm or that the evidence was not sufficient to establish psychological trauma the defendant is simply not entitle to a reversal of his conviction however i'd like to circle back because in fact there was no ear here in under either of those two theories first i'd like to address this simpler issue rather than evidence was to establish they collide tical injury the court has indicated that the issue here is is simply whether it is within the province of a late jury to comprehend that symptoms such as lasting value and isolating in  sleeplessness which follow upon a young girls in countering of a man in a kitchen wearing nothing but his shirt who proceeds to try to drag her outside of the kitchen whether the jury can render its own determination that that constitutes psychological trauma in this case the evidence is so clear and the inference is so simple that it was within the province of a jury now there may be more complicated cases where expert testimony  might be required however in this case it was just it was not necessary for an expert to come confirm what every person already knows which is that this is a very traumatic experience for a young girl in addition the defendant cannot prevail on his argument that the statute does not encompass psychological injury first of all the language of the statute itself is not at all the language of the statute encompasses any injury to a person that clearly in compas is more than just physical injury and as your honour's suggested during opposing counsel's argument the legislature knows perfectly well how to refer to physical injury by itself its use language and other provisions of the code that require bodily harm or physical injury it chose not to do so here it chose to employ language any injury intending to encompass as much as possible this would encompass clearly psychological injury because that would be an injury to a person furthermore there in the legislative history there is ample support for the proposition that the legislature intended when it passed the home invasion statute and assign it a class six designation it was not seeking only to punish physical injuries of a type that might be covered by other provisions of the criminal code it was also concerned with the intangible harms that come when someone invades a person's private sanctuary and permanently and as indicated by the facts of this case you know some of permanently it impairs a person's ability to add to feel secure in their own home and i will cite to certain provisions of the legislative history but do run some support to this position neighborhood we've come to presume that our homes are castles and immediately upon home invasion occurring in the neighborhood no one can feel safe in that community the entire concept of a man's castle being his home as is violated clearly that refers to house or anybody's house i think the crime should be a very serious crime because that's our house and this is our place of living he again is concerned not only with physical injury here his concern with intangible harm and finally on page eight thirty seven comments of saying meister for a long time there's been the old saying that a man's castle is harm it should be at least a class experimenting if we can't be safe in our homes where else can we say there wa debate in the legislature about the severely of the crime that they were designating they were legislators who expressed some concern that this was a class sex designation however that would be makes clear that the majority of the legislators believe that this deserved a classics designation because of those psychological harms that are entailed by the kind of home invasion so very little were the defendant is not correct that there is no reference whatsoever to psychological injury in the legislative history for them why is it there's unnerving that was legislature never debated the precise issue of whether psychological injury should be  a defendant has taken in refining to attacks and to physical injury were given in other contexts where the legislators were just using this as a shorthand as a potential application  the statute however the legislator never at any point expressed its position on whether psychological injury should be encompassed and finally i also like to note that in this case as the people have argued in their brief the statutory language is very broad however the precise issue before the court is not how that statutory language should apply in all circumstances it is whether it is a correct statement that this statute  es psychological trauma that results from physical contact the polling council was up here and he said that it's not at that someone be simply scared however that was not what was presented to a jury in this case the jury was asked to find psychological trauma and furthermore it was it instructive that it had to find that this was an injury that the defendant intentionally caused all of the levy a tiny concern is that the psychological injury here was anything but serious and the add billions in this case presented that the victim's psychological trauma resin fact very substantial thank you just want to take an opportunity to clear the factual circumstances of this case the defendant did not testify that he intentionally did anything in this walker's house what the defendant testified to was that he was in the process chasing the prostitute ran into the to miss walker's house she turned the lights on when she heard some commotion in the kitchen and they collided in an attempt to avoid a collision mr hudson stuck his hand out his hand accidentally hit her shoulder according to the defendant and got caught in her long hair that was draped over her shoulder he in it's own contradictive he asked miss walker for help he even when this rocker was screaming and was not responsive to him asking for help turned to leave the residence in his hand was caught here he admitted during his testimony that he pulled her hair at that point but that that contact was incidental as i said earlier it's it remains a question of credibility on whether or not the injury the physical injury in this case was intentionally caused it's very possible that she could have suffered the shoulder abrasion appeared here in the champ thinking finger during the collision that took place in the kitchen under the defendant's set of facts and that's why it's important for a jury to determine that issue to figure out who is more credible after looking at them and observing their testimony the state also mentioned defendant statement that he tried to pull miss walker out the house at trial he denied making that statement to place so as not his trial testimony an officer prior to trial or during trial stated that is what he informed the officer that is not to defend his testimony regarding invasion but the defendant was arguing was using those cases as persuasive proof that when you have a general verdict return when they're all trying to verdicts of guilt one of which is invalid there's a question of which one of the elements of guilt that the jury returned a verdict on the valid one or the invalid one as i said earlier there remains a question of due process it's very possible that the jury convicted the defendant of a ground that was not committed by the statute that being psychological injury until that's remanded to the trial of a we have no way of knowing what grounds the jury convicted the defendant of and so those cases were not used to say i believe that there's a constitutional issue here it was used to say when you have to alternative theories of guilt once invalid we need some way to determine that the jury rendered their verdict based on a valid theory of guilt and not the invalid one additionally the state referenced several statements made in the legislative history of the statute and i just want to clarify those as well again there is no indication t and makes it hard sure on a class x phone makes harsh on a criminal who invades a house and commits an armed attack or battery on someone within their home so even in that statement he's referencing some sort of physical altercation and not one where there's a psychological injury additionally as i said earlier there is absolutely nothing in the legislative history to state that the legislature was trying to perhaps get any sort of injury if this psychological injury satisfies a statute other than just a psychological injury and the reason it was important to have expert testimony in this case is no one asked miss walker are you afraid to go in your kitchen because you saw scary movie and something happened in the kitchen they never ask you are you isolating yourself in your bedroom because you just broke up with your boyfriend and you're upset about that there was no question like that asked her so we have absolutely no idea if it was the defendant's contact with her and it has to be the contact it just can't you see him standing there there had the physical or the psychological injury has to be a result of physical contact there's absolutely no evidence on the record that it is that her injury or legit injury is due to her contact with the defendant as opposed to just seen him there or her being afraid for some other ground around some other ground when you argue that the psychological injury has to be a result of this is the basis for their instruction or that is the instruction i would argue that the instruction finds it supporting eric the instruction defining a the any injury claim or the instruction allowing for a finding of psychological injury to satisfy any injury claim was placed in the i physical cause the responsible contact but the girl in that case had suffered a psychological injury and there was expert testimony saying that it was a psychological injury and it was because of the physical contact that's completely void from this case i would also note that while there are several references throughout the legislative history to a man's home being it's castle those are frequently followed with a statement such as and we should be safe from physical harm in our own home it that statement is kind of a broad statement endorsing the fact that there needs to be protection for physical harm and not just one that as the state would like it to be one that was very broad that encompassed any sort of emotional or further psychological injury that a homeowner would suffer if we get to the issue of psychological problem under the statute could this court find that the element of physical contact is unnecessary i guess i'm not following are you asking me whether you could say that there was physical contact and therefore i'm saying is physical contact a necessary element to order or a prior fact psychological that would be a to this course determination there's nothing in there saying that you can or cannot do that i would also point out that i don't disagree for the most part with eric's reasoning and that's the fourth district case that held that a a home invasion includes a psychological injury i disagree with their conclusion i think there are now if this is correct the every court said well look the legislature used the term any injury here why did they do that and they i believe they referenced the legislative history there's nothing saying that day when we read it but they said we believe it was legislative intent to prevent any sort of psychological injury in this case and while i disagree with that i think the proper analysis is to ask why the legislature use the term any injury and i think that simply because they want to prevent any physical harm no matter how minor that could even be the sensation of pain as