simple the complaining witness here is an employee dealer and here is casino the defendant william richmond is a patron gambler of the casino this entire incident is reported that a d v d tape fr that this t v show when you hear i believe what happened was in the d v d that my client walked up behind the dealer and he touched her here and held her here almost you know we characterize this that is a pulling of the here but is a touching and not pulling not restricting her head movement and i'm not really trying to minimize it but it's outtake it is what it is what he did reacted to this nobody thought that they'd witnessed it was anything unusual that was going on in a casino there was no reaction by anybody not by security not by anybody from here on my gaming commission it was near not from the you know  standing in an elevator was it the attack of anybody standing behind me trying to touch a button to do get my point obviously knowingly he touched her here but again there was no criminal intent he's just playing he's just goofing around that appropriate in any way shape or form to touch somebody but is it a crime is a crime i think there has to be some kind of object know it's not judge it certainly is no it's not but i think it tells you something about the complaining witness i mean you know that subjectively obviously she was extremely offended by this i mean even even though it took her by written testimony a while the process she was obviously you know offended by this but just suggested in light of the my name is kelly craft and i represent the people of the state of illinois in this matter this court should have done the lower court's ruling that defendant committed battery because the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the victim when he snuck up behind the victim while she was working and pulled her hair without her consent i would argue against adopting an inflexible rule that assumes that a man in gay gene in the pulling of a woman's hair or tugging of a woman's hair while she is performing her job is non criminal i would urge this court to consider the particulars of this case for using that you have to work at the whole context there isn't just a touching or hole in her it really comes in but that isn't differentiates us from something that's yes or i would say that i think you have to look at the context and one of the cases that i mentioned in my brief people versus pack and explain that a particular physical contact he deemed insulting or provoking based upon the factual context in which it occurs in that case i talked about it a bit and that was people versus back but in another case settle that has similar a similar situation it was a case actually defense counsel mentioned and that was people d resign and that was a simple case where a man who had prior he knew a woman he was in a prior relationship with her they were in a workplace and he came up behind her and sound in a chair in a lunchroom and his knees touched her and she complained then that man was charged with battery and what the appellate court ruled in that case was that it depends on the particular facts of that situation and i would argue that was you take a look at the particular facts of this it's lation the facts a trial that were presented show that the defendant snuck up behind a woman while she was working having her eyes on a table where there's arguably hundreds of dollars on the table concentrated on the table she's in the middle of a challenge as she testified that he said to her i get you like that don't you defendant testified that he thought pulling the victims here would make a law he testified that everyone at the table was having fun he testified that he did not think it was a bad idea to pull her hair through his actions he was clearly intending to get some sort of reaction from the victim and he did she was it yes so prior to pulling her hair you were looking at her rights he said i mean i was looking at the center of the table right but as you were approaching her you formed the idea that you were going to pull her hair she said i don't recall that so prior to pulling her hair you thought it was a good idea to pull her hair he said i guess so i mean i didn't think it was a bad idea she wasn't that close to him she was in the middle of her workstation and he did sneak up behind her she didn't know that anybody even with behind her and he came up and touch three action from the victim she she said at st i was in shock i didn't know what to say at all it happened very quickly but then she could say it took me about an hour to process what had happened i didn't really say anything to anybody i had gone to the next table and it wasn't until i went on break and i was almost sick to my stomach and then i when i talked to my manager and said that i had to guess just put his hands on me i just think under these facts it is very clear that the defendant violated the batteries all think you have to look at it from the standpoint of recently that reasonable this would have a reasonable person be offended by that and i think it all depends on the entire set of facts that we're going to take a look at if i'm standing next to somebody at the office and if something comes up and test me on the shoulder and i going to say he battered me when i when i was in law school actually a gentleman behind me pulled my hair when we were sitting there  flats did i charge him with her but using a battery you know but i will say that this woman was in a different situation she was an employee he was a act he did intend to get some sort of reaction because he did say i thought it would make her laugh i would say that the mere fact that it didn't just make her laugh that she was insulted felt insulted shocked it shouldn't give him a pass that it was ok to come up and do  this but i would say it again in this case when you do look at the factual circumstances in the you do look up cases on the insulting and provoking they do say it's factual context is what to look at don't touch me it was not a program that actions cross the line i think a lot of it comes down to you know respect for the whole fellow human beings in the workplace and he by crossing the line going behind a woman in the casino where she was working there was testimony that this does not typically happen that people do not go behind a certain area in a casino and make contact with the dealers defense even put on a witness that said he didn't witness his friend or so she had or pulled a woman's hair but he did hear her say don't touch me and he told him when he came back to the table after performing that act he said you gotta be careful about putting your hands on people in a casino you can't do that