believe that that was pretty your honor but this was a constructive possession case there are basically two ways that you can prove constructive possession as you're saluting to your honor the state can prove that he premises even if it could be argued here that mr wells had joint exclusive control over the premises on top of which the profound we do not believe it can reasonably be argued that yes degree of control over the exterior of those premises such that criminal but with respect to whether or not we can draw inferences from these other logic control buys this was an issue that just to be completely honest broader i'm not sure this seems like this would be along the lines of in violation of the prohibition on propensity evidence because we're using evidence with respect to other crimes to prove a separate crime but in any event the bags at the back of the drugs in the gutter state represented pretrial that they had multiple of their fingerprints i believe it was nine other fingerprints none of these were mr wells despite that fact the state seat actually asked for seizing multiple continuances stating that their specific purpose for doing so was t attempt to identify those types of those other press instead it called its own fingerprint expert to numerate numerous reasons how mr wells somehow could have touched those drugs without leaving his prints on so because of the reasons we feel that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr wells instructively possessed of the drugs that were found in the gutter and for that reason the count seven should be vacated outright however even if this court finds that mr wells had drugs but rather it included six grams of heroin which had been dismissed in count seven and in that way so although there were only three grams and just be clear it's roughly three grams so although there were only roughly three grams of cocaine actually controversy the scene nevertheless predicated socially his entire case on the element of intent to distribute based on amount of drugs that was free times that and again i would note the state not only makes these drugs initially but they were apparently separated for the purposes of weighing them by the crime lab and then replaced into the same evidence bag for the purpose of displaying them to the jury the state then called officer to testify as an expert in drug distribution he speculated over multiple  cocaine the officer explained forty dove said of being like in a unit of scale if you will he further explained that that would be worth eight hundred dollars and then went on to explain that it would be unusual for a mere user of cocaine to buy eight hundred dollars worth of cocaine that if you look at the colloquy of how that came out it absolutely left open the possibility that the remaining substance was also cocaine the fact that the individual described both substances as i believe a white chunky substance and if i recall correctly i think contain at least three point six grams of cocaine or something along those lines but in any event if you look at the exact colloquy it certainly left open the possibility that all of the substance being displayed to the jury was in fact ok then all this up and it said that if mr wells and back possessed ten grams of cocaine would that be three times the amount a user would typically buy whereupon the officer stated in the affirmative and then all of those roughly six pages of testimony all predicated on ten grams of cocaine was tied up with the officer restating that in his expert opinion ten grams of cocaine was a dealer amount of cocaine and i would note here that it's not just the officer who is using the words ten grams of cocaine put the stat itself numerous occasions also uses the words ten grams of cocaine even though the state unquestionably knew that we were dealing here with only three grams of cocaine so we believe that at a minimum the evidence remanded for a new trial because the cumulative impact of the numerous trial errors that night mr wells a fair terminations of his face years ago the only supreme court explained that it is a fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system that the introduction of evidence of other crimes to show or suggest the propensity to commit crimes is an improper purpose and it is prohibited this prohibition on propensity evidence is a particular concern whereas here the other crimes being referenced they refer to  exact same nature as that which the individual is on trial and this is because among other things it invites the jury to engage in an improper line of reasoning that well if he did it before he must have done it this time here the state essentially created another crime scene and tried mr wells as a drug dealer by eliciting highly prejudicial testimony regarding the numerous numerous prior drug transactions in the year preceeding the first transaction in this case as well as numerous testimony about the amount of elicited and specifically use numerous statements regarding ten grams of cocaine we believe that this would be prejudicial not just to count seven where the state was attempting to prove that mr wells possessed this with the intent tribute we also believe that this would be prejudicial as to all th not only did it support the state's drug dealer theme but it also pulls the credibility of actually claims that she was buying drugs for well it's also supporting sees other crimes drug dealer theme was the testimony regarding how it was that ashley was able to recognize mr welles voice rather than simply establishing by non prejudicial means that perhaps actually recognize his voice from knowing him for the preceding year the state instead elected to in fact this testimony b that she recognized his voice on the quote numerous times that she called him in a phone number that was specifically provided for the purpose of buying cocaine we believe that this would be prejudicial not only because it's making reference to numerous other occasions involving the vaccine crime but also supports the state's drug dealer themes and circumvented the prohibition on purpose in part on propensity evidence and invited the jury to engage in the improper reasoning that if you did all of these times before in the preceding this case this was purely propensity evidence it was not offered or necessary for that for a continuing narrative to explain why it was that ashley targeted mr wells that in that we know that ashley had already previously testified that on the morning that around the day excuse me that she became the shoes recruited by the officer to be a confidential source that she purchased drugs from mr wells on that morning so although that that in the limited instance of other crimes may have been a continuing narrative this year worth of numerous of her patients were she's being as closely supplied by mr wells certainly was not necessary but was instead very prejudicial propensity evidence because again it's involving the same crime supports the seeds for abuse or theme it bolsters actually spread ability and again and bites the jurors to engage in the improper line of reasoning that if you did it before you must have done it this time and finally i would note that also supporting the state's other crimes for of your theme was the extremely prejudicial testimony that the state specifically elicited that ashley was only able to be her year and a half long cocaine addiction once mr wells was arrested and thus your supply was no longer available this was testimony that was not even arguably relevant to anything when miss me when miss dawson actually dawson the confidential source when she was able to quit using cocaine may have been relevant to  stablish ing that she wasn't under the influence during trial which she said she wasn't or may have been relevant to establishing that she was or was not under the influence throughout the investigation which she admitted she was but how she was actually able to quit suggest that mr wells was this predator a drug dealer who is victimizing innocent mothers by supplying them with drugs that otherwise would have been unavailable they didn't she testified that he wasn't only source on that point your honor  this becomes a little bit unclear but i think what she was explaining there was the op and i do not respect recall specifically which of the areas controlled by she may have been referring to but there was a there was a reference there to her purchasing it from another individual who mr wells had given the drugs to so she perhaps arranged to make a phone her of arranged she claimed she a range of drug deal through mr wells that then got actually physically receive the drugs from a separate individual i believe that's what she's referring to there your honor and some we believe that the cumulative effect of these numerous trial errors created a pervasive pattern of unfair prejudice but did i mr wells a fair it please the court good afternoon my name is a million ferguson i'm appearing today on behalf of the people of the state of illinois mr wells the defendant in this case was arrested and charged with eight different felony counts and ultimately was found guilty by a jury on april second twenty fifteen every single count that he was found guilty on was a felony and was eligible for extended sentencing as a class sex felony which means on any one of those felonies a conviction subjected him to a sentence of thirty years with three years of mandatory release the trial court ultimately based on his extensive criminal history sentenced him to eight concurrent terms of thirty years finding that he laughed rehabilitated potential i was important to note that while he was found guilty of eight felonies a conviction on any single one of those felony counts would result in the same in result in terms of the sentence he subjected to defendant raises two main arguments today here in requesting that this best characterized as an uphill battle with regard to sufficiency this court is required to look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and to only overrule if there are significant and serious concerns about the testimony and the evidence presented against the defendant with regard to the admissibility of evidence likewise this is a deferential standard of review it is a question about whether or not the trial court to use discretion defendant should look at in terms of intent and knowledge and what that might look like however the state would note that it is a type totality of the circumstances that it is not about removing any single factor and asking whether or not that particular factor is determinative but when well they're looking at the entire picture it needs to be reasonable inference the defendant both knew and had possession of the drugs that were found in his gutter and also had the intent to distribute them with regard to knowledge it is a reasonable inference when you find drugs on the property of a individual that that individual had something to do with them being there that is a reasonable inference a jury can draw further there is additional evidence and additional facts that were heard by chief by the jury to help substantiate this number one would think you're right yes number one if there was a chair in the backyard clearly please spare based on its height and easy accessibility with the chair of the presumption would be the defendant based on the additional factors that support the idea that the defendant was aware that the drugs were there and had indeed placed them there number one it is reasonable for the jury to infer that finding the drugs at such a location indicates an individual is trying  to shield their discovery should anyone come looking number two when the defendant was presented with evidence of during the search that these drugs have been found he made a statement that could be indicated indicative of guilt he indicated this notion that he was now in trouble because that the officer had been able to find that which he had hidden and the final factor is the fact that there was evidence presented at trial that the defendant was engaged in a robust activity selling drugs and while the  defendant may try to at this point in time refer to those other controlled by us as other crimes evidence in this context they were not other crimes refers to crimes outside of those which are charged and currently being considered by the jury and that is a separate factor the fact that the defendant was engaged in selling drugs and there was evidence presented that he had been selling drugs to mr osten just days before the illicit materials were found in his gut or was permissible for the jury to consider in terms of would rather whether he had knowledge of those drugs and whether he had the intent to deliver them so those are two separate factors there and we're looking at this the totality of the circumstances here all of the factors the fact that drugs were found in his house  the fact that the drugs were found in a place that would indicate he was trying to conceal them from view that a fact that the defendant had been engaged in selling drugs and the fact that the defendant made a statement that it was indicative of guilt taken all together would allow the jury to come to the permissible inference of the permissible conclusion that the state had met its burden of proof here of the state would of course know that any one of those factors is not determinative however in looking at the bigger picture out about three o'clock in the afternoon were back by four thirty which is a relatively short deliberation when considering eight different felony counts and multiple individuals who were called to testify definitive not touch on the other  where he argued submissions and the evidence however when i was simply no with regards to counts one through four and eight that comes down to the credibility of the witnesses and in this context and when there is has been a jury trial great  is given to the jury because it is their province to determine whether or not a witness is credible and whether or not they should give that particular witness's testimony in the weight and what we should be given and of course as is noted in the state's brief here we had  two competing individuals we had to conduct confidential source who provided clear concise consistent testimony that was corroborated by the investing officers and then of course we have the defendant who offered alternative testimony but that was inconsistent self serving and was ultimately subject to pietschmann so with regard to those particular counts the state would argue that it was more than sufficient evidence to support the convictions against the defendant defended also raises concerns  legal framework this court should consider but the defendant does raise a number of concerns with regard to admission of testimony or discussions about the evidence that was presented at trial with regard to again that amount of the drugs that was found in the gutter and the state would note that while there is a concern about not well our unduly prejudicial testimony and it is a concern to him very seriously by the courts of illinois there is an equally important concern and equally important factor case or to remove factors that are necessary to the determination of the jury and to the jury's understanding of what happened so in this particular instance we have the officers testifying quite honestly that they discovered a bag of substance that appeared to be cocaine that the total weight of that substance was a little over nine grams but that also meant when that substance was tested by the state crime lab it was not all found to be cocaine and it all comes together full circle and as a result the jury was not misled him point in time about the amount of drugs and controversy and the amount of the actual cocaine that was found in the gutter of defendants home it was about three point six five grams who counsel though we have a police officer whom juries will look to who are expert in the prize in terms of the experience a police officer has we have an officer saying a user amount is something three are under and here we have much more than that almost nine or ten wasn't that confusing to the jury that it yes your honor that is a fair concern however the most risky thing that the state can do is to overstate  evidence and so there's an equally compelling question about whether or not that testimony could have cost the jury to view the state's case as less credible because they heard testimony about ten grams they heard testimony about three or less or three or more it could have cause confusion in the jury's mind as to whether or not the defendant truly had this amount in order to distribute it whether or not he had a personal use obviously the jury came to a conclusion that they were satisfied with the evidence but again it can be very risky for the state not to present very clear evidence to the extent that there was any confusion or any risk and refuse and it was equally likely to undermine the state's own case however even when looking at perhaps the testimony was that a user would be unlikely to purchase more than three grams and the amount found in defendant's got or was technically more than three grams although obviously the larger the amount the stronger the argument that it would not be for personal use but it wasn't of amount larger than was typical or what they heard the jury heard in terms of testimony it also was far larger than the amount of the drugs purchased by miss toss all of the drugs that were that were analyzed by the state crime lab in connection with those controlled by were well under one gram so looking into that totality of the circumstances and the bigger picture the jury certainly concluded could conclude that the amount defendant also comments on the testimony from the start and about the timing of her drug use and when she was able to stop using drugs the state would like to note that much of this testimony was not a list sitting on direct examination by the state attorney it was to the contrary elicited during cross examination in an attempt to undermine or and commute each mistah since credibility that she was using drugs during the time that she was involved in these controlled by us and that is a reasonable trial strategy it is understandable why that why the defense counsel would go down that direction however it did allow and did open the door to is that additional information about when she was able to stop and at that point time  redirect examination mr osten volunteered the information that she was able to stop after defendant had been arrested this was a single line of testimony to the extent that there wasn't any potential for prejudice it is highly minimal  drugs at the time of the jury trial the jury could still in their minds infer that it was due to the fact that the defendant had been arrested and then it's just that the consequence of the type of perceiving that was before the courts and as the state has noted that would be implicit in any type of perceiving dealing with this particular type type of crime and the nature of this crime that the jury might in their minds believe that the fact defendant had been arrested reduce the amount of did not use its discretion in allowing this testimony it was up it was permissible for the defense counsel to elicit this on cross and because of that it was it was necessary for the state to be allowed to  witness on redirect examination so as a result the state would know that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow this test and even if it was or even if there is any concern that can be alleviated by the knowledge that it was highly unlikely times how is it that your ability to quit you and i'm pair up slightly paraphrasing i don't have it there or it's just lucky but how is it that your ability to quit using cocaine correlated or corresponded with mr wells and russ how that could beat her answer users typically possess what he described as an eight ball which was roughly three grams of this no we we we have looked into this and a false three point five grams so basically he's possessing out is it that doesn't mislead the jury i just can't understand how our how that can be reasonably argued i mean that with all due respect but i just don't understand how it can be recently argued that that is in no way misleading with respect to the issue of forfeiture i don't as as was briefed i don't believe any of these issues are forfeited they were all objected to i believe that two of them were specifically including the post trial motions and of course because these are issues that go to a constitutional right i just don't believe that they've been forfeited with respect to the deliberation time i don't believe counsel provided any wall that that somehow evidence of guilt and if i recall correctly i don't think we've briefed this issue but if i recall correctly i think this court has on numerous occasions rejected that notion that somehow the jury you know deliberating for three days means all they had trouble or the jury deliberating for a couple minutes means that we must have a guilty and then finally just with respect to recent unsing i understand that mr wells could have gotten thirty years for any of these offenses and eventually but the trial judge here did specifically state that she was basing the thirty years among other things but in in large part i believe on on basically the numerosity of the offenses that gave rise to these convictions and so if this court vacates any one or all of the challenge convictions we do believe that this matter should be remanded for the assuming there's no new