running is agenda number four case number one zero six three six one in re samantha v minor people are state of illinois versus samantha good morning your honour's may please the court my name is joshua tough for the northwestern university bloom legal clinic and i represent samantha v minor respondent in this case key issue in this case is whether the one act one kind of crime doctrine established that over thirty years ago i have this court in people became applies to juvenile cases such as samantha this issue has been resolved by this court three and a half months ago in people v r t's and i quote referring to the case of in re w c this court has applied the king doctrine any juvenile case the king doctrine is the one act one crime doctrine it's this court's words three and a half months ago and nothing has changed there's no compelling reason to overrule that decision every single reason for the doctrine in the criminal context applies equally to juveniles if not more so in the context of the in quincy the doctoring one act one crime doctrine prohibits multiple convictions parole board would use this misinformation in their way to fact it defendants or whoever whomever's on parole opportunities this court in artie's and other decisions have recognized that there's other reasons as well outside of parole namely an unfortunate future interaction with the criminal or juvenile justice system again this concern is so great that in our tease and again express clearly that forfeiture is excused when further one act one crime doctrine under the second prong of the plane error past the error of facts one act one crime doctrinaire affects the integrity of the judicial process that's what this cour in people v harvey and reiterated again in our tease three and a half months ago the interests of justice require correction to avoid the possibility of future confusion or future adverse effect to the respond adjudication and minors can suffer this future prejudice as a result of an unauthorized finding of guilt on their record in exactly the same manner if not more so of course and the underlying offense of delinquency it's considered in many respects in future court hearings whether it be a future bond hearing in criminal court whether it be a future juvenile pretrial detention hearing in juvenile  whether it be a transfer hearing an extended juvenile jurisdiction hearing of course a sentencing hearing in juvenile or adult court the underlying offense or offenses are clearly relevant and should be considered by this sorry any future court in the consideration this court would walk of course these these hearings would want to know whether the underlying to link with the finding was based on one offense multiple offenses whether it was based on a murder or whether it was based on age and that's the mean or a petty offense these are relevant considerations clearly there's other context even outside a future interaction by  a particular defendant or responding with the court system if the minor were to be a witness in a future case he could be impeached by past adjudications the underlying offense which of course is relevant here underlying offense or offenses why should these courts have mis information at their fingertips that there were multiple acts when an offer ice finding when there were not there is no there is no interest that the state has identified and there's no interest in sports having incorrect information skate this doctrine is about accuracy and that's all we're asking at this week pro trade accuracy even outside court proceedings and corps person there's other people who would have access to these doctrines but juvenile delinquency educations are confidential mostly not to all sources if a minor in the future wanted to join the military for example there's a delinquency and they were equally want to know whether there were multiple acts and multiple offenses for the delinquency finding or if there was a single finding and finally lest we forget that the original and original rationale for the king  schlanger and the cases before that was the parole or the concern for the parole parole has been eliminated as we know in the criminal justice system but has not been eliminated in the juvenile justice system so the exact that that there's more helps with my math course room for a moment i mean only assume that we agreed with you how how would we structure that ruling i know that in your brief use sometimes you use a merging concept in other times i think you ask us to vacate something i'm not exactly certain what it is that we think a assuming that we had to pick between the two aggravated batteries here who would do that who would do that the decision as to whether the one that would be merged into would be one or the other i was a little imprecise and that and i apologize for that  teeth and in the second part of our tease and this court decided that it should remand have to have a hearing or the trial court to decide that decision if it wasn't in the discretion of the state but obviously we don't take a position on that in this case we would be does bring up a secondary point in that one of the state's positions is that the disposition order doesn't refer to any of the offenses the fact is that there is nothing called a disposition order in this record and that needs to be clarified there's something called the sentencing order and there's something called a probation order probation and practical supervision and supervision and it's hot out now in the criminal context there's a minimum this and that would be the  underlying offense for the delinquency is in juvenile court i'm an appellate practitioner and i have practiced in juvenile court but i have had my share few of our cases and they all look different approach i've seen just positional orders i've seen probational or now i've seen something called a trial order which is in this case too and i think it should be clarified but it ultimately what we would ask is that this record be clarified and that there be a rematch now practically speaking not cross appealed on that issue so i would imagine there would be a rematch order in this case and your score it would be it would it would order that so the practical effect of this case is always already going to be remanded i think it would be most appropriate to remand  samantha should be a war of the court and then there's the disposition which she was sentenced to five years probation so there's two documents that refer to what i would say of the dispositional order there's something called the probation supervision order and supervision this process that makes no reference to any underlying offenses it makes no reference to a single finding of delinquency it says nothing about what we could see it says what sen the second document is something called the sentencing order which again says that the minor having been found guilty in all statutory corrective it's having fully complied and minors a judge the word of the court so i think that would be the second that divine actual divine struck a second stage and then also later says that she said this to five years probation there's no mention of the underlying offense there's no mention of a single finding of that link once so the record is entirely unclear and what i would say with that is that if there is a potential future prejudice what is a cork going to do practically speaking they're going to look at these documents and these documents won't say what the underlying offense are so they would be more likely to look at for example the trial order are more likely to look at the social investigation report which refers to both offenses it would be more likely to look at the report of proceedings to clarify what exactly these delinquency findings were based time so those all providing miss information and that she that they have an interest and portion by the state there's only a single that there's only one physical acts here and so there needs  clarification so future courts are not prejudiced record reveal whether there's any police records that flow from these police records or from these documents there's a later no arrest report or something along those my point is would this be and would it be clear from the record or elsewhere whether or not these two findings are going to go down the police records i don't think that is clear in the record at all so i mean i imagine there's of course the police file on this case but i think there wasn't i can't speak for certain but i know if there was anything there was an arrest report in this people be crespo informs this decision now and the fighting isn't over manifestation but you need to be more it can be instances where the evidence could potentially support multiple acts but the state has to apportion the charges and proceed to trial in that manner that there were multiple acts and they did not be chose not to do so here regarding the charges first of all the first point is to  of course i think it's the state i don't want to speak for them they can certainly correct but don't isn't it argued that there is more than enough factual basis for that if the findings of guilty on both charge they suggest that when they when they charge aggravated battery causing great harm aggravated battery and public way that alone is enough distinction support well why is apportioned each of the stab wounds to prove each individual they did not and this court said they had to because it is profoundly unfair and to do so for the first time on appeal and it gets into constitutional problems of which only distinguishes on public way both charges a wedge multiple times striking in their arguments a trial say the same thing they used the singular attack in their opening argument they say it occurred on the public wa is what is what supports count two that's all they distinguish count two is that it the battery multiple multiple strikes multiple times occurred on the public way closing argument they make the same distinction and i just finally have knowledge that quote the two counts of aggravated battery were based on the same in single physical act of battering rosalina the published decision in the coal miner respondants case jessica and the state charged responded with the same conduct under different theories of culpability there's another quote recited much of the same language additionally alleged the beating occurred on public on a public way the two counts the same language and finally the trial court set itself as to count two there is no question that the beating to that somebody that the state is arguing that you basically have want to do dictation based on two findings the concern in one their own grand doctrine is future prejudice we don't even if we don't dispute that there's a single finding of delinquency i think the case must point that i'm not entirely sure it seems to me it's a single finding of worship and the talking to in the jury situation couldn't be when you go back to the record and find out a person had been i've been found guilty looking at the future prejudiced and future sentencing hearings in future impeachment of witnesses they want to look at one document they're going to look at the minimum in the adult criminal context and that's what we should have here so they can go back and say it possibly for protecting defendants who could be convicted of multiple convictions arising out of the same physical act from the prejudice that would result specifically as counsel noted in the form of negative parole outcomes for this reason fundamentally the notion of the one after one crime doctrine is a bit of a misnomer in the juvenile court context when you look at one act one crime we tend to focus on the number of crimes being alleged whether or not they're arising out of single physical acts  really what we should be looking at is whether or not there is prejudice that is resulting and in artists this court very recently simply stated it was  ours itself was really a invitation by the people in that case to abandon the one on one act one crime doctrine as a whole and the state of illinois and i believe this court no disrespect overgeneralized  perhaps the one at one crime doctrine as it refers to do going to court i understand why the court said what it said one acts one crime doctrine is very important in all of these different circumstances adult chords and pleading juvenile courts but specifically the case that artists refers to w c in that case there is no no one in the record does it talk about changing the disposition order based on a one act one crime type violation  if you're talking about multiple in this case multiple findings of guilt more we have to recognize that their findings of guilt is very different than fines of delinquency what happened in this case is exactly the same relief that the minor respondent received in w c essentially was a technical heir and that it agreed with the state that all you needed to do was if future proceedings came about and someone future court and a subsequent receiving needed to look at the minor spine and adjudication all they would need to do is just look at the record and that any sort of air would have been eliminated by close reading of the record but and for the sake of judicial economy they went ahead and corrected the decision order to reflect the one fin have the same set of facts in front of them would choose to file an adult and or choose to an indictment or information charging both aggravate agree i really battery great bodily harm as well as aggravated battery on a public way people would present their evidence at the close state's case if they had not their burden the trial court would enter its finding as to both counts and then would merge those counts and enter a single finding of guilt and a single sentence as a result and that is the exact same thing that happened in this case in the min respondants case in the juvenile court setting it's not the people's position that the one act one crime should never applied to juvenile court cases the decision than it already does because essentially what's happening in adult court is what's happening here any sort of future harm as this court noted i protected then an adult would be in a criminal court because take for example a situation where king would not apply in the adult for contacts multiple crimes that aren't based on a single physical act if that happened in multiple findings of gets not multiple fines of delinquency because that's not what we have here especially though if we if there's multiple findings of guilt or the fear then essentially that would be taking away from the state the ability to choose which crimes to charge based on different theories  alternate theories in a case that this young woman from in this case was near adopting i believe she was fifteen at the time i believe it's seventeen she becomes an adult if what if a person in her position was arrested after he's seventeen years old ok and was charged with felony drug and you looked at a record you saw aggravated battery probably harbored aggravated battery separate aggravated battery yes because the people had met their burden as to both counts of aggravated battery i did seeking the maximum sentence she could get when she was a prosecutor like to introduce both of those aggravated batteries and aggravation as much as i would like to as a prosecutor i don't believe that they have the ability to do something you were involved in this case and you know there's a problem i also was that practitioner and dual court as well so i understand that when looking back these people's hands as far as just even charging instrument itself in the initial filing of a petition a petition for adjudication of words that the people would really have to judge which crime are we going to charge here because if the fear is multiple findings then we don't have a lot of options as far as you can you could charge as many crimes as you walk you can choose how you charge them you could just follow crossbow and if you charge that you could pick after the trial which one you wanted to be your lead charge or if you wanted multiple charges you could cure you formulate your complaint so that you could do that i don't i mean i guess what i really don't see where the state are you could file multiple charges no i'm not i'm not saying that i think the harm then becomes i am saying that's one regard but with regard to your last question i believe the harm would be if she's found guilty of two crimes and essentially only kind could stand and an appeal is raised based on that crime and for whatever reason say in this instance in the aggravated battery great bodily harm for whatever reason that crime was reversed and remanded and essentially a count that we had already proven her guilty of would no longer exist be it the aggravated battery in a public  but we're not trying to i'm just saying and in the hypothetical i'm trying to give an example as to what the harm would be so essentially if you have two findings of guilt where the people had met their burden but really because of this fear multiple findings only one guilty finding could stand and somehow that was appealed and overturned essentially she would not have to stand responsible for the other crime that she was already found guilty of if in this case what we're talking about is the harm in multiple findings of guilt to minor respondents there is no prejudice here when one fine is entered of delinquency and one sentence is the result and especially sense in light of this court's statement and we see that if there is any confusion all you need to do is simply look at the record the record as a whole and that in this case you can look back and definitely say that ok there was two findings of guilty to aggravated battery great bodily harm and aggravated battery on a public way yet there was only one finding that was entered and the disposition order reflects the one finding which was essentially the technical error that was remed and in essence the minor spondon alleges that she was prejudiced but the prejudice is ameliorated by the fact that she already has a correct dispositional order in addition it is the people's position that even if the one at one time doctrine this quite find should apply to the court cases this case is not one in which that doctrine would apply but the way the petition was laid out was such that it a push and the aggravated battery great bodily harm due to the stitches to the had battery one was for committing that in a public way and one for committing that it creates serious bodily harm to aggravated battery count great bodily harm was knowingly caused battery harm to rosalind are in that she was struck about the had multiple in both charges the distinguishing feature is public when count two and that is proven by the fact that they say public way and the fact that they cite separate statutory subsections in the first  sections in the first charge citing section eight in saying section b eight in the second charge crespo teaches that the attention of the charges and to a lesser extent the arguments a trial statement refer to any arguments a trial where their portion you want me can charge any legal theory they want that's what's done in criminal court that's what can be done in juvenile court it's just they can charge multiple acts of course they can because they may not be able to meet their burden for great bodily harm where they could for public way or vice versa they can do that and they can find it but if it all two million ends up being the same act to merge and there are one that's to be vacated or whatever we want to refer to it us and as far as their position that only my understanding of their position is that only the single finding of delinquency is relevant and i just find that position very difficult to understand or to take it and just i don't believe that the state clear for example in a subsequent sentencing hearing is going to use the fact that it delinquency finding with based on a murder where they're going to use the fact that it's a lincoln c finding was based on multiple offenses and if it was based on those things if  a brutal sexual assault they're going to base that based on on that they want to know the underlying offenses offense or offenses and it is profoundly unfair if someone who is not found delinquent for petty offense for a misdemeanor or a way for a lesser fowling should be asked to be in the same category as a murderer and i think you know what is the state's interest in promulgating this confusion of course these courts wan former is more someone who murdered someone is more dangerous than someone who committed a misdemeanor and should be treated differently and they are treated differently and that's true if we're going to take the state's argument to the extreme where does that leave us in and and i hesitate to say this they don't want to give states the argument in the future but i would be confident that this court would reject this but does that mean i don't think we'll see fining based on multiple offenses that the defense and the palin would be unable to challenge reasonable doubt on one of those offenses or trial error on one of those offenses so if someone is fat if it was hypothetical minors found a link with based on murder and disorderly conduct and there's no to see that and we challenge reasonable doubt on the murder is that moot because there's are because we're not challenging the disorderly conduct and only the single finding of delinquency is relevant that's the state's position and so i'm not exactly known think i'm exaggerating out in that can't be proper and that can be constitutional of course the underlying offense and offense is irrelevant and that's why the one that one prime doctor needs to apply equally and with that thank you case number one zero six three