battery and driving on a revoked license with a prior that's not a felony unless you have a prior and to prove it you have to show that for on a highway  i thought i might try to make this a little shorter than normal by jumping to the jury instruction that one might use in a prosecution for driving on every revoke or suspended license in the us i do you high traffic are criminal of twenty three point three nine briefly the entire winter between the boundary lines of every way i'm likely maintain when any part thereof is open to the use of the public separate separate those two elements th are publicly maintained and open to the public use me at the preliminary hearing which you've all been trial judges so you know these two felonies were to shoot the aggravated battery about was publicly maintained fitting into that statute i just read crystal perry was a witness for the defense she was the employee in the supervisor of assessments office she didn't testify i don't think in best counsel now we've heard now all we've heard so far for whatever reason somebody from somewhere in this county may be maintaining that roadway it doesn't translate into becoming the public highway i believe maintenance that may or may not have occurred to that that's required meaning we got to go plow the municipal parking lot at x location her head becomes a public highway so feds council is admitting that whereas public maintained is a factor showing it's a highway as defined in the statute but he goes on to say the evidence we got from that last witness is extremely sketchy so he's not challenging what i'm talking about he's challenging the credibility of the will nevertheless the trial judge found probable cause to believe these families were committed which means the judge found that it was a public highway or that was i way is to fin later the judge makes a contradictory ruling just a blanket order no explanation saying no you can't you can't introduce evidence of what is publicly maintain and that's what we're complaining about we're saying that makes no sense one you already found that a highway through defense counsel submitted a public maintenance as a factor three the statu said publicly maintaining so we're asking this court to reverse the trial judge's finding that the state cannot put in evidence about this virtually being publicly maintain shirt and defenses file a statement of the nature of the case or some document so much that stating that they intend to use the defense of accident that this may have occurred but it's an accident well it was a prior incident where the fender spit on another officer and i think his ex wife has to fight he doesn't like cops in so many words and like to spit up should the family have testified the state wants to introduce evidence that this was that it was an accident state wants to introduce evidence that it wasn't an accident now their argument appears to be that this would confuse the jury but in all these cases a court will knows you give struction three point one or with respect to the first argument as to whether virtual anus publicly maintained highways defined in section six twenty five iow c s five slash one it's the entire with between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when or any part is made are open to the public a private road in contrast to that is defined by section five slash one dash one sixty three it says that a private road is every way or place in private ownership and used for  vehicular travel by the owner and who they want not the public use there was no testimony that there were any any public use of this road if i could start with the public use a portion of the two prong test the cases cited in the state brief are cases where there was public use of gross for instance a parking lot owned by a business yes it's a private piece of property or roadway because it is a parking lot but it was open to the public for use of the business one of the cases cited was a road that was used to go to a park and there was testimony from a taxi driver who drove people from the crane deep to the park there were several ever cases cited by the state that were similar in the sense that there was testimony that it was a public road that the public used it there were witnesses that testified to that fact and witnesses that had been in the area and use that use that road the only evidence here was that the engineer who testified he's an engineer from jersey county testified that he believes that because of state tax records the town of pious off maintained that when in fact we believe they filed it once in the entire time i defended the defendant lived there saying something like that with no other evidence would be like if the post man delivers mail to him does that make it a public road and that's a state agency federal agency so if the mailman coming down the road i guess that means that it's a public road if you p s comes down to deliver a package it's a public road the difference is that's not true because those people are invited by their implied lee invited to deliver the mail to deliver the u p s package things like that this road in question is not used by anybody but the owners the witness for the defense that testified works for the state the state of illinois department of transportation now that was not a legal copy what she provided it was a certified copy of the plaster of what they had their aerial views that they take a property they mark on these properties if it is a state owned road you know the roads right here the property comes up to here there is a line at the end of the property before you get to the road because that road is a public road if the line does those cross the road that means it's part of the the owner's property which is the case here with respect to the argument that the court admitted this is a public road the court did not admit this is a public road the court and the court found that there was probable cause to hold that the defendant over for trial he was just the same throws that hold on the motion  road there to my knowledge there wasn't not as to the character nature of the road i i am not the trial counsel he was he did that part of it i don't recall that from the transcript that that was referenced with there be any maintained there was no one there from the town of pious saw that says yes for the past x amount of years we plow it whenever there is you know it's secondary it's the last road to be you know they they can testify with their records my understanding is it was plowed once in the sixty six years of it being a rope that i can i without that the testimony i can't in the testimony of the defendant of that i can't prove that but that is that is my understanding the other portion of that is all of the cases that are cite d by the state states that maintenance of all the roadway is not the only test as to whether it's public or private and that it's a state can be a strong indication that came from the case cited by the state to me versus city of orville because the road had been used as a roadway where the public since it was built witnesses testified they use the road and that it had been maintained that it had been maintained they'd seen it being maintained by consideration and the opponent of the motion would say look this is what we anticipate presenting on the issue that the states in this case indicate to the five court what it is that they had in the way of evidence that they were prepared to present in her guards to maintenance of the the road the only thing that from the record i can conceive is that the engineer for the for jersey county testif that he has access to the town of pious all records because of some sort of tax money they get and that the town of maintains that road that's the only thing that was provided as far as i know there was no documentation provided as to when it is maintained and whether it's ploughed as a secondary street or you know anything like that the only thing that was provided documentary documents as far as the document is concerned was there was nothing i just said maintain the road and again the courts that the courts in illinois have stayed that it's not just whether it's maintained so i'm not conceding that fact i don't believe that road is maintained by the town of and if it was it was by mistake one time on snow removal but even if it was it's not the only issue and they don't they have not provided they did not write to the corps ample evidence that this was publicly maintained by way evidence and ruled that this is a private road based on what he had in front of him there was no abuse of discretion with respect to this issue and if there are no other questions i move on to the second issue with respect acts the cases cited by the state a few of them are sexual offenses by nature this two statutes that deal with the sexual of sexual charges as well as domestic charges  are controlled by seven twenty five i'll see s five slash one fifteen dash seven three is for sexual crimes in sexual type crimes seven is for i'm sorry for is for domestic those cases as he correctly can be presented it's much easier to get those in as a prior bad act in that kind of case or in domestic cases also for murder in first person to green second degree murder with respect to the battery that is here if the defendant were to testify people versus i believe it's people versus montgomery a supreme court case controls whether or not prior back bad acts can come in and i believe that they can go back ten years for a conviction this particular case they  the state wanted to bring in i believe it was five for five prior bad acts all of those and up with this missiles the only one remotely close in factual in the actual basis for this is the one sided by the state where he allegedly spit blood on an officer that case was dismissed outright that case was not he didn't plead to a lesser offense he didn't get more supervision or probation it was dismissed to give that to the jury and say don't read anything into that it was that it was dismissed ted but we don't really you know we're we're just going to let's just say see that he's done this before is more prejudicial than it is produce probative for the jury the court because this also is an abuse of discretion standard it's discretionary on the court as to whether or not this would be a situation where if it is allowable and even if it is for instance on the under the statute for domestic and sexual crimes the court can still deny bringing those prior bad acts in if the probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial effect so on in this particular case you've got to show the intent or whether it was an accident  the defendant were to testify it up and say it was a total accident i didn't mean to do it then the state has the opportunity at that point to revisit that issue with the court and state to raise the motion in limine a again the court can reverse that change his mind and allow that evidence to come in the motion eliminate is not a it is not a final order in the sense of you can you can raise that again at trial there is one of the cases cited by both of us and in both arguments is hancock and the court in hancock stated that there is no actual prejudice inflicted by the defense that by the denial of a motion and eliminate in itself because the ruling is always subject to reconsideration during trial the same holds true that there is no prejudice inflicted by granting a motion in limine a because it can be revisited at trial so if defendant opens the door to something that has been excluded it's just like an evidence on direct examination if it if the judge overruled or sustains an objection on bringing certain evidence in but then somehow that hurt the defendant opens the door to that then if he can be cross examined as to those issues the same thing is true here he's not the state's not precluded from bringing that in if they revisit that motion and if it needs to be addressed if the end of the defendant doesn't testify then these prior bad acts are in there and he has he has no defense whatsoever the jury will think what they think most likely he's a bad guy he's probably guilty of something so let's just find the guilty it will confuse the jury the fact the other portion of this is that all of the charges that the defendants are i'm sorry the cases that bad acts that the state wants to bring in that share price of this before they were all dismissals at some point the only two of them they were the defendant was given court supervision and they were dismissed after the period of course supervision  and i'd like to correct a couple of things from the state's argument the defendant's wife did testify that the defendant does not like office police officers nowhere in the testimony that say he'd like to spit on the officers that was not in there he does not like officers and he does not like them on his property as for a s for the issue of prob the probable cause the court held that there was sufficient factual basis for the the charges to stand trial it is important to note that it's only touched on in the briefs  court of the state amended the battery charge the day of the motion and limiting from i believe contact to no contact i'm not sure if it's a lesser battery or not but they did amend the charge which  made the arguments there are several other motions that involve that and that that motion was allowed by the court to amend the charge but again the the state i'm sorry that the state can revisit these issues at trial if there is state was not arguing anything about being open to the public that the trial judge did not bar the state from bringing in evidence that it was open to the public both of the two definitional elements in the highways the course wants this to be a private roadway i mean it we went outside to record here with facts i can't count time many times courts told me that if it's not on the record it doesn't exist but the reality is people live in these rural areas then that the government comes in and removes the snow occasionally the government comes in they call it the oil and ship the government comes in fills the potholes the government comes in puts in this and puts in that stop signs it both ways he wants to be able to say yeah you guys go out there and spend all that money and fix the road but when i'm out there doing a criminal act then it's then it's my own so he wants it both ways well but the problem is that so so far we only have one instance of a snowplow that's not in the record she said she said there's one snowplow that's nowhere in the record she says there was only one tax record that's in case if the judge riyad a trial of the jets as i already told you you cannot bring in evidence about this being publicly maintained even though the statutes where is the recourse of the state