well the attorneys who are going to orally argue please come to the or to the podium and introduce yourselves for the court ok each side will have fifteen minute star you appellant reserved from your fifteen minutes whatever portion you want to use for rebuttal helen please proceed oh by the way the third member of our good morning again my name is autumn renee fincher from the office of the state appellate defender and i represent tom naylor and i would like to focus my argument today on the first issue regarding kneelers aggravated criminal sexual assaults conviction but i'd be more than happy to answer any questions that your honour's have regarding the other crimes of it and issue zero and i would also later reserve five minutes for rebuttal until the issue presented in this case is very clear why is the meaning of the first cause of section a wine of the aggravated criminal sexual assault statue the way the statutes written very clear a defendant can be guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault under section twelve dash indictment made no reference to the second way that a person could be guilty under section eight wine so this case presents a simple but unique question where the state charges that a defendant committed a c s a by threatening to use a dangerous weapon whether the state must then prove the defendant actually hiding to interest and the answer to that question is yes so that's why we're asking the court not reverse time in the convictions are right sufficient under clause to that he had his hand in his pocket or he acted in such a way i was to leave the complainant to believe that he had a weapon on ham buy it here in this state just charge very simple the indictment  other words displayed you threaten to use that or display that or any a dangerous weapon or any other object that could be used as a dangerous one so it seems to me i thought your w and he threw the object on the front seat of the car in during the assault he kept reaching for it that same evidence i will quote you having his hand behind his back and reaching out for the object was the scene evidence that the prosecutor told the jury same such that a three would actually those he says why where the weapon is one other than a firearm with the street be absolved proving that exact same element of the defendant actually had a weapon  may please the court my name again is sharon arnold kanter i am an assistant state's attorney and i represent the people of the state of illinois counsel's correct in saying that the way the statute is written in section a one is very clear that is absolutely true the statute states that in the course of convicting an aggravated criminal sexual assault the defendant use displayed or threaten to use a dangerous weapon that language is clear and unambiguous and the plain meaning is exactly what it says it means the defendant can contend he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the standard of review in this case is in the light most favorable to the people could any rational trier of fact find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the answer is absolutely yes and that's exactly what the jury in this case did the jury was presented with direct and circumstantial evidence from which they can make reasonable inferences and they found the defendant guilty of aggravated criminal sexual assault all threatening the use of a dangerous weapon defendant agrees that the testimony was completely credible that the physical evidence was compelling however the defendant argues that he could not be found guilty of having a dangerous weapon because the victim didn't see that object we know and the defendant agrees that when the character or nature of an object is doubtful or the manner of its use is in question it is a question of fact for the jury to decide we also know that it dangerous weapon is exactly what the trier of fact says it is in this case the trier of fact was presented with uncontested and uncontroverted evidence of the defendant's words and actions that the defendant how this hand because the defendant's words and the defendant's actions and the circumstantial evidence that the people who provided the trier of fact in the form of the other crimes evidence in which the defendant committed two other acts of aggravated criminal sexual assault while using a the fact bad when the victim or is it he when he gets into the car to drive the victim away he throws the object in the front seat that when he goes into the back seat of the car just specially assaults her bad he and she resists she resist taking off her about that he reaches for that object that he threatened to cut her three to four times throughout the course of the assault and threatens to kill her five to six times but the jury has the opportunity to have a evaluate the totality of the evidence and circumstantial evidence is just as powerful just as relevant as direct evidence it's reasonable inferences made from the facts presented and the fact that circumstantial evidence was presented to the trial or fact with regard to the defendant's propensity to commit aggravated criminal sexual assaults while using cutting instruments be it a screwdriver be it a knife the jury could absolutely make a reasonable inference that the object that the defendant had behind his back was in fact a dangerous a cutting instrument and it's extremely important to look at this in the light most favorable to the people and to look at the statute because the narrow interpretation that the defendant is putting forth to you does several things one it ignores well established statutory construction the evidence of the dangers or his words his actions as well as the proof of other crimes evidence that the defendant in the past had a poor than city to commit aggravated criminal sexual assaults while using a cutting instrument if we if we adopt this argument if we talk about the proof of the dangerous weapon we're not doing this in a vacuum they're going to courts and your colleagues in the second district and the fourth district have addressed this issue specifically and people versus daniel the victim  invited the defendant into the car and what people versus daniel stated was that the words threaten to use mean exactly what they say and nothing more is required for the element to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt now people versus leach and the fourth district which was decided after the amendment to the statute agreed with daniel and explained the legislative intent for that purpose the legislation the legislative intent for that purpose specifically is that the use and display should be punished equally with the threat to use riot that it was a threat to use a dangerous weapon could compel the victims value judgment and whether or not to resist or whether or not to signal for help the next could be chilling threatening to use a dangerous weapon is the same as a ready to use it and it would also render the word threaten superfluous in the statute because the use of a deadly weapon i see a dangerous weapon  would submit to your honor that a person would be guilty of aggravated robbery because this is the elevation of a crime or a sentencing enhancement for the indication or a threat to use a deadly weapon where one isn't known as recovered or not is actually seen is not with that that there is no need for the dangerous weapon to be seen or to be recovered or presented to the jury because what that does is that rewards the defendant for controlling the crime scene or taking the weapon with him and this or for discarding it or for destroying it in this particular case is not merely a threat we don't have just merely a threat but i would submit to your honor's in people versus least that's exactly what there was there was nearly a threat to shoot and stab the victim there was no motion to an object there was no object thrown and people versus leaves the court decided that threatening to use a dangerous weapon is enough to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if he had not said well th without the word but it's an interesting argument that we have the facts as they are before us and they were presented to the try refract in this case i believe that holding his hand behind his back and saying in the instead of using the word cuts instead of the wor harmful i'm going to hurt you would have absolutely in terms of an aggravated robbery would have met the same burden there is no requirement in an aggravated robbery that the weapon be seen as indicating that the new image will has a weapon and that's understandable i believe that the threat to use a dangerous weapon i'm going to hurt you and the indications remember his words and his actions depict exactly what he was trying to do his hands behind his back he's grabbing this teenage girl off the street and he is threatening to harm her in this case and we must focus on the backs that are provided in this case because in the light most favorable to the people yell ministry prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did say he was going to cut her he did say in more than one time he said three to four times he said he was going to kill her five to six times and he did throw an object that he had from behind his back into the front seat and when that victim resisted and was not complying with him or was not subdued he reached for that object to perpetrate th that you have before you this defendant threatened to cut her if she did not submit which is a completely different issue than i'm going to kill it there's no indication of a death a dangerous weapon there however the words absolutely but in this particular manner in the case beyond a reasonable doubt improving each and every element with regard to threatening the use of a deadly dangerous weapon the habitat of a cool that you're giving me only says i'm going to kill you doesn't say how i'm going to strangle you that perfectly fine i'm glad to answer any questions that you may have i would like to address the i will i will address it quickly counsel talks about the manner in which the case was charging that the people should have charged under a different section specifically that an object was fashioned or utilized in a manner as to make one reasonably believe that object is a dangerous weapon first the people have the discretion in charging documents based on the evidence that we have before it and there are many different ways to charge many different crimes including lesser included offenses and lots of different threat modes for wish that we can charge offenses but in this particular case that section is meant for an object that is inherently not dangerous but is used in a fashion that is and when we talk about that we're talking about something like a flashlight that if you bought it in a hardware store it's not dangerous but if you're going to threaten to hit someone over the head with a metal flashlight that's certainly a bludgeon and a dangerous weapon we had the  prove that the defendant threatened to use a dangerous weapon against this victim and it's important to recognize that it's not only from the direct evidence but it is important that the circumstantial evidence the judge sets provide any meaningful analysis in terms of the  similarity the proximity in time and relevant circumstances of the defendant's propensity to commit aggravated criminal sexual assaults while using a dangerous shot of cutting instruments is absolutely a piece of evidence that the jurors could use to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so we ask your honor based on the reasons that we've argued today and the reasons that we have cited in our brief to affirm the defendant's conviction reasonable inferences in this case is a very slippery slope you know that the urges you to rely on the other crimes of it and what your honor pointed out was admitted for identity and propensity not to establish an element of be a fans as it was charge  element of the offense such as whether it wasn't in fact a dangerous weapon  de the complainant reasonably believe it to be a dangerous weapon and here and she said that that's not the suit but that's not the situation it was presented here but here we have no idea that what was in his hand no idea and i just want to keep reminding this were that under the way this particular case was charged that the the state have the option i did have the option of charging it in the way that actually happened you know it according to