point something that both public and private there is that their basic function is to transport patients to the hospital but that's the distance that is required  address that would be the type of activity that would be covered under this subsection and it certainly wasn't the intention of the legislature to make balance out of potentially sick or injured people who believe that they apnea study because he was starting to experience an exciting head and i know that because he never requested assistance for a heart attack he was very clear correct ok but he didn't call a private ambulance diddy he made a direct called fire department correct he made a direct call but it can't be assumed that he didn't know that it was  ambulances fall outside the parameters of the statute here because they're not him or can't transport patients for non emergency nonetheless here he didn't call it a private ambulance and as i recall didn't the dispatcher tell him from the get go there ambulance facilities do not simply transport patients so he was pretty aware that from the beginning right i would say he  on the linguistic the set to this simply isn't the type of conduct that being criminalized well again though that if we believe your client version of the event which apparently the jury did not believe well even under the state's version we do have the novel monk called with this he clearly states that he's trying to get there for sleep study point n and that he was experiencing specifically in a bag attack not a heart attack for whatever reason it was argued below that he was having a heart attack he never represented that or an x for this or that it was having chest pain correct correct and he's not a doctor dispatchers not a doctor she hears a call or saying i'm having chest pains that leaves her with no choice but to send an ambulance said i'm having chest pain what alternative did the dispatcher have what to do and then ambulance i'm not sure but this is from the clearly didn't know that that would trigger a response and definitely ok all right i have no where the question thank you thank you justice hudson do you have any question yes i do have several questions said words as we know when a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is made on appeal the relevant question is whether after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the elements established beyond a reasonable doubt and as we know as a corollary of that the jury in this case is charged with the responsibility of weighing in assessing the credibility of witnesses the weight to be given to the testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence  in this case and i think that you make a very compelling argument that when the defendant st called nine hundred and eleven it's possible he could have reasonably believed that they he had a right to request them to transport him to the hospital even for a sleep study even if there wasn't any medical emergency which i think you make an argument that that's a plausible position to take however the evidence done shows it was  after a dispatch operator pointed out that he was not entitled to a ride in an ambulance to a hospital for sleep study he then said that he was having chest pains ok so he calls up he asked for a ride he thinks he's entitled to it he's not guilty at that point perhaps of disorderly conduct so how do you respond to the argument that once he was told that he did not have a right to be transported the jury could reasonably conclude that then the defendant feigned chest pains and that would turn the request into a false one why couldn't the jury have decided that it dept point when he was feigning chest pains and there's evidence that he was based on the paramedics testimony and a deputy sheriff when he asked them you said he wasn't having a medical emergency why couldn't the jury find him guilty based on his persistence when he found out he couldn't get a ride for a sleep study i respectfully disagree that he correct but she also interrupted him right after he said i'm head back this week he was clearly trying to explain why he believed that the sleep study was necessary and why i was necessary for him to get to the hospital and clearly he still carries that belief even after she related this information in him and his request simply isn't false because  they don't make that mode of transport available for that purpose well who makes this determination because i'm looking at the transcript of the actual call when she asked about the emergency he says i need to get t who says what's wrong he says i don't have a car and i have a sleep study to go to tonight i can't sleep he has an about chest pains he says sir we can't transport you because you have a sleep study appointment you know i need to get to the hospital now i'm starting to have chest pains i need to get to the hospital and she says ok that's not what you originally said ok so even assuming that what he's saying there was true and it's not faults one of the paramedics arrive and they start asking him about this he starts to say really wasn't in a medical emergency he wasn't having the chest pains he had to get to the sleep study he's a taxpayer so why tell us why the jury couldn't then find that it became a false request because he knew we couldn't get there st sleep study it had to be a medical emergency i respectfully disagree in your honor the paramedics specifically testified that mr right there called him to his chest pains  really think well i think you're overlooking the claim isn't the claim the paramedic who responded to the call excuse me matthew mclean was he not the paramedic who responded to a call  did he not testify in the trial he did that is testify that the defendant only complaint was that he couldn't sleep mcclain asked the defendant if he was having a medical emergency when he got there defendant said that he was  ot so what do you make of that nine hundred and eleven call is made the operator you know obviously exceeds to his request an ambulance set out the paramedics there believing it's a medical emergency they get there in the defendant's says he's not having a medical emergency he's talking about getting to a sleep study again as a matter of law the jury can't find him guilty at that point again that doesn't does it become a false report well here it just simply wasn't because he never changed the nature of his book but it was always to get to the sleep study because again he doesn't have a car he's starting to have chest pains he has an infectious disease  perhaps someone having a baby at this everest and then the ambulance goes that as if no one's having a child no one no one needs to be transported to the ambulance at all it's more so for a important to him if we were to say that that requests fall because he needs to go through an appointment and again that mode of transportation was available for that purpose we look these things that people who call you know i understand everything you're saying i understand your point but my final question to then is why wasn't this a matter for the jury to decide in a jury trial well it depends on how because we all agree that the facts are order cited in the transcript but you are saying that when at least what i am hearing is when this call is made he believed that he was entitle that he had a reasonable basis for calling to request the sam elance is that correct correct so do you have any authority that indicates that in fact that is the time from which or at which we determine that an offense has occurred is there anything that puts that as the only time that we can determine than that or that there can be some issue of a criminal o well this subsection has not been construed before but from the plain language of the statute again it says knowing at the time of the transmission and the time of transmission is when he made the call when he it doesn't say knowing during the transmission it says at the time ok well then let's go from there she i believe the dispatcher is a she says well sir this is not the type you know this particular ambulance service is associated with x y z and this is not the appropriate use of it because it is for emergencies now he has an opportunity to back off and  say ok my mistake but instead he adds facts including that he's a taxpayer including that he has insurance which is kind of an interesting fact to add and then of course we are talking about the chest pains is there any authority that says once he's on the phone and has been told the problem that the offense could occur because he now is persisting and conceivably i'm not saying he was but conceivably embellishing the situation again this subsection hasn't been construed before but again i would i will argue that it has to be at the time transmission so as an section of the transmission because from there he's still trying to explain why he needs to get to this appointment and why it's important to him why he has the subject belief that needs to be transported there he's not trying to provide them he's genuine in his for work what  the fact that this batch of tory authority has not yet been construed to the best of our knowledge did you have a chance to look outside of the state of illinois to see if this has any other any other app has been construed otherwise how did you make the determination that this was designed really for a prank that had mean it's creative on your part if it's your own your own idea but did it come from a law review article did it come from another state where did it come from well going from the bra purpose of this the sorely conduct said to as a whole this just doesn't seem to be the unreasonable manner that would serve alarm or provoke in that's not what happened here that's why i think the argument that it's that for the narrow purposes of criminalizing prank situations or baseless calls that are used to waste resources well didn't is mention of chest pains in fact provoke a response as just a subset ask that she hears chest pains and she really doesn't have much choice does she whether it's true or  not i'm not sure but he clearly wasn't sure from their conversation because again he acts can you send me my ambulance please so he doesn't know for sure ok i think i may have been i don't have any other questions that this point you'll have an opportunity to reply if you choose to do so thank you think are you ready to proceed your honor thank you thank you good morning your honor is victoria justice for the people of the state of illinois may it please the court and counsel i think your honors were touching a lot on the purpose of the statutes and what just orderly conduct is aimed to prevent and as this court has said in state or disorderly conduct embraces a wide variety of conduct that destroys or menaces the public order and here while i have no authority on this it appears from the plain language of the statute that the statute is aimed at not occupying emergency vehicles for non medical emergencies we're looking here this isn't simply calling nine hundred and eleven and requesting help that's not what the statute said the statute is looking at a transmission for a request for an ambulance and here by calling nine  the dekalb county sheriff's department we know that in a that an ambulance is defined as an emergency vehicle we also know from the language of the disorderly conduct statute we're looking at an ambulance and ambulance medical technician ambulance or emergency medical technician paramedics themselves so we have what is inherently the assistance that is being request said is inherently a medical emergency by requesting an ambulance you are asking for emergency medical assistance this court has already stated that by calling nine thousand one hundred and eleven is consciously aware that an emergency response is practically certain to result by asking for an ambulance likewise you are asking for assistance with a medical emergency you wouldn't call them because you had an animal control problem or a utility problem you are requesting emergency medical technicians or paramedics or taking you to a hospital where one goes for medical treatment zero honors also noted we have two parts of this call the inception of the call was the request for the sleep study even if the defendant reasonable to believe that was a ground to ask for assistance dispassion informed him that is not the purpose of an ambulance they would not dispatch an ambulance for such a request so once he was told that it was no longer a reasonable ground to request an ambulance and as the defendant kind of hit the nail on the head that after mentioning the chest pains he went back to the quote real thing which is still the sleep study so after being told that a ambulance will not transport him the false request became his report of chest pains and that is what he was charged with in the indictment not with making a request for a sleep study it was making the request for a chest pain and that became his adjust said we argue that it is his adjusted request once he was told no he persisted in requesting an ambulance for the chest pain and then to the sleep study and because he kept reverting to the sleep study both to be dispatched to the paramedic to the former officer and in his brief and reply brief is showing what his my and set was he needed transportation to a sleep study not emergency medical assistance for chest pains it was the jury's province to consider the defendant's testimony and weigh his believability and credibility and plausibility of his explanations and irrational trier facts could infer that he was not having chest pain at the time he persisted and requesting an ambulance and after essentially being told an ambulance was not a taxi service to a medical appointment a medical point meant he knew that he had rescheduled he or the clinic had rescheduled four times he had no reasonable belief to think that he required assistance from an ambulance so we ask that your honour's affirm the conviction and sentence and we are now available to answer any questions well yours your your position is when the he after he is told he can't use an ambulance from dekalb county or transportation that that that then becomes dog training and he says i have chest pain that's the transmission at issue correct that is the transmission and shoot your honor that is what was charged in the indictment and that is the transmission that is the false request is the transmission an ongoing thing or does it have a finite beginning and in another words did the transmission under the statute begin at the time the nine eleven dollars call is placed as counsel for the us well the the statute does not say that it is limited it is just saying transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner a false request for an ambulance so here the state did not charge him with the false request being his initial request the state charged him with the false request being chest pains so at the point into the statute the additional words at inception no that's not that is not in the statute and i had a growth there was a statutory construction tell us not to read additional words into a statute ok counsel you know this happened on the last time that you were on a remote argument we're catching i'm catching about every other word that you just said yeah i'm having a hard time hearing ok did you beat your answer and perhaps talk to your boss about a better phone service i have nothing else thank you just it would it would be a an uphill battle to say at that point he knew he did not reasonably need an ambulance assistance if he's never been told he's not entitled to it in those so there may be that confusion is coming from argument closing argument where the state clearly says that we have a sense of entitlement he says he has the right to an ambulance whenever and then she says a few other things and then says that is not an emergency necessitating calling nine hundred and eleven and then she goes on to read the instruction which doesn't talk about the particular time or the particular charges you've identified in the indictment it simply says the state must prove the defendant knowingly transmitted to the police department a false request for an ambulance knowing there was no reasonable grounds for believing such assistance is required isn't that she's saying she shouldn't call nine  which sounds like inception and there's nothing really in the instruction that clears up this concept of inception is there i believe without having the instruction right in front of me i believe it was following the wording of the statute which does not include language about inception of pay but her argument is about inception calling nine  that it is not perhaps as artfully stated as it could have been but we are overall looking at as i stated before by requesting an ambulance assistance we are looking at you know an emergency medical assistance so perhaps like i said it could have been stated better but it is not wrecking the jury from still being able to judge the credibility of the defendant for knowing he could not request an ambulance for spain you need you started your argument with something of a similar nature saying that the statute allows you know for the calling for the use of an ambulance or with questing  technician or requesting a paramedic where the only only thing that mentions emergencies are the emergency technician or the emergency paramedic why then should we put the word emergency in front of ambulance because of the the inherent nature of watch an emergency vehicle is and under as i believe i cited in my brief under statute six hundred and twenty five five backslash one dash one o five an ambulance is an authorized emergency vehicle so that is the inherent  nature of what an ambulance is at least one of these public ambulances as opposed to calling for private ambulance which unfortunately i have no personal knowledge of whether that is for non emergency or emergency use well i recognize we don't have a lot of time for philosophical discussion but i believe that there are also used to transport people recently deceased their that may be your honor but i suppose it's are you require the person that's calling is not going to be calling an ambulance for  i think the transmission would not fall under this section i don't know that you're calling necessarily the police department or fire department knowing there's no reasonable ground for assistance i think i think that perhaps you don't need and emergency assistance in the same manner as you would for treating a live person but i think it's arguable that removing a body safely for whatever purposes it may to be removed whether autopsy or preparation for the family or or burial is still a situation where you don't want that body lingering because you know some some symptoms are purely subjective like pain i think in that can only be expressed through that person the next as your honor noted including the state not only challenge the chest pain but they also challenge the the sleep study and they made it will go down to whether the sleep review the language they asked you regardless of the classification of the of france does it does it impact us it differently if this were a class c misdemeanor well i think the fact that it is classified as a felony offense goes to the to of the legislature that they intend to make these types of situations to penalize these types of situations so harshly it has to be for again for more situations sosa's pranks or situations where you're simply just trying to drain and you're saying it does because bottom line the prerogative of the jury to listen to all of the testimony and decide what happened here yes correct but again as your honor noted the state challenge will the testing in the sleep study so they weren't narrowing it down to his symptoms of having testing they were a challenging his reasonable belief had to the sleep study but nonetheless the point it was no matter what the state that it is the jury that gods what happened here and we should  not nd guess the the credibility determinations of the jury is correct generally o usually the jury instructed that closing arguments are not evidence and it might make their determination based yappin and to disregard close arguments that are not based on the  evidence correctly but that wasn't based on that particular portion of the argument wasn't based on to see the evidence but it was interpreted the issues that they needed to prove or the propositions excuse me and the jury then was given an auction correct correct and then tractions did not indicate which complaints or less that they were claiming is false inform or the person calling is informed that they have an emergency vehicle transport them to a hospital under those circumstances and i can think of a circumstance where somebody runs out of food it's the winter when they call ambulance to transport him to the responsibility under the stairs because when they initially told it was legitimate i don't understand that position you gave requesting an ambulance for the store that clearly isn't even the purpose of an ambulance and then know that one of those persons actually is strangers and may seem believes that it's a personal and you say subjective emergency they have the right to call nine hundred and eleven for that and they find out that that is not something they can do you keep pulling in and the moment the call in the request is made is that your position and nothing that the caller says after that matter how false can never be charged no that's not my position my position is that it's just narrowed down to whether they genuinely need assistance being transported to the hospital specifically and whether they have a subjective belief that they have reasonable grounds to do so what about the if the person finds out from the dispatcher that it's not a reasonable request if you cannot get there or a study that no matter what they say after that it's ok well in this particular instance he wasn't changing his request he actually did if anything relating to sim phones and his reasoning as to why he was making that but that was only done after he was told he couldn't get an ambulance for the sleep study correct that was the st time we're going to the transcript i'm looking at that he mentioned anything about chest pains  correct but prior to that he also said an infectious disease in i don't have any authority to support this but i would believe that seems pretty severe to have so that will indicate that he was starting to play in his reasoning but he was just coming off and he continued to do so because he still believed that he had every school ground right but he said nothing about  are consistent with his diagnoses and with the doctor's note indicating that he did need to keep telephone services in order to call for medical services that meet because as the doctor testified he was suffering from we will take this matter under advisement we appreciate your participation here this morning and we will issue a decision in due course we'll stand in recess for the time to prepare for  argument thank you again counsel question do you have think in