either another quote should do what or the state legislature thought we can find that the trial court abused its discretion what they should've done was once they found that the instruction was an error they should not applying abuse of discretion standard they in the court was not going to find an abuse of discretion when the court used an i p i instruction that they believe correctly stated the law at that time that said that i was part of what the second district through but a good judge is faced with an right to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt not the states so well even if the court found that all instructions were an adequate well then it should have it should the phys a proper instruction and a constitutionally sound instruction it's that of that instruction says fourth the contributing cause requirement that's correct but right after that it states that the state has to prove that the cause of death quote did not result from a car was on connected with the front doesn't very similar if not the same arguments that the states make in here that it's too hard to do well you don't drug addicts use different drugs it's too hard to prove let's too bad the the the require this proof beyond a reasonable doubt if it's hard for two reasons it should be done one of the plain little reading of the statute and true constitutionally in this particular case i don't need and he looks particular statute the contributing factor does not what is never to my knowledge that never dealt with the drug use time as i said i don't i don't believe could have caused the death so the problem is the acts of the fountain here was were beyond delivering the herald so the jury was free to speculate and well ok maybe the use of the needle maybe the cocaine those are all a takes a tiny amount of hair one and dies the medical examiner testifies that the cause of death was ninety nine point nine nine percent the cocaine and point zero one percent they heroin but this a situation in which the death would not have occurred but for the tiny amount of here one correct while that if that was the instruction by four but it wasn't i mean if it's if it's bought for no if the instruction is given would say contributing to right right control were won over that before did not result from a cause unconnected with defendant so if is jury found under the scenario i give you that the point only one percent contributed to the death doesn't hold water with respect to whether or not the amount to the point zero one that is my in my hypothetical would be problematic for a contributing cause instruction but i make the argument that and you're saying you're basically given a thought for hypothetical saying that ok it's still that without that one percent the person would not have been death that's not that's not the case or the case here is it's all put it but the reason i give it is to show that in that case a contributing cause instruction would have sufficed wouldn't in the hypothetical i gave you were contributing cause rather than a bug for instruction would suffice come back to the british case in this discussion about percentages is that you're correct that the school says is it sufficient that these the drug maybe make something so fifty percent more likely fifteen percent five percent who knows i mean it i think the statutory interpretation of which i believe is what w person dies as a result of the use of that drug in two thousand and six the general assembly amended the statute to instead use the language any person's death is caused by the use of that longstanding definition of cause and homicide cases the two thousand and six amendment if this is an intent to define cause the same in the drug induced homicide statute as in every other  anyone what sets it apart is the general assembly's policy determination that this is a way to deter drug distribution and they made it a determination that this crime requires it's it's own statute with its own sentencing range and they have made a policy determination that when one delivers a controlled substance  well there's no there's no textual reason or any other reason grounded in the canons of statutory interpretation to interpret that were was different in this statue than in any other  defendant's entire argument well why is upon a claim that very few united states held as a constitutional matter that for causation is required for the imposition of criminal liability marriage did no such thing and burbage itself recognized that many states like illinois use contributory causation and it did not purport to overturn the laws of those states since purged many states have held that urge was not a did not announce a rule of constitutional dimension and then in paradigm united states the supreme court itself recognized that causation is not constitutionally required for the imposition of criminal liability and in fact in parallel lines the court explained it would be unacceptable to adopt a causal standard so strict that it would undermine congressional intent where n the legal tradition demands such a result and that seem reasoning applies with equal force here partially it appears that defendants argument may have more somewhat  but the record contradicts there are many multiple times every time any evidence that defendant had engaged in other uncharged conduct such as providing the victim with cocaine the court gave a limiting instruction informing the jury that that evidence was only to be considered for defendant's state of mind and to provide a coherent narrative in the jury instructions immediately before giving i p i seven point one so there wasn't any confusion here about what the state needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to show that defendant caused the death of the defendant suggestion that the general assembly did not intend to reach low level dealers such as herself is contradicted by the plain language of the statue under subsection be one of the drug induced homicide statute defendants who delivered relatively larger quantities of controlled substances that result in death are subject to a heightened penalty of fifteen to thirty years defendant here was subject to a minimum of six years she was sentenced to nine years to be served at seventy five percent meaning all in she will serve you are that seven years in prison that is not only substantially lower than the penalty for a larger scale drug distribution in illinois but it's also substantially lower than the twenty year minimum that was at issue in birch reinforcing the conclusion that congress and the general assembly intended different meanings when they drafted these different s and if this court changes its definition of cause there's no reason that that would be limited to the drug induced homicide said it would severely disrupt this court's homicide contributory causation is routinely relied upon in pieces of multiple shooters group beatings and medical complications this case is no different then th case of multiple shooters both of whom struck a bit with bullets and were convicted as principles not on accountability and the testimony was exactly as it was in this case any of these bullets could have killed the we can't know what would have happened had a victim been struck with two bullets rather than three bullets it is a practical impossibility for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what of what would have happened in that counterfactual in this court said in people v brown using illinois established definition of cause that that is satisfied in that case beyond a reasonable doubt to say you both committed a criminal act you wounded this person this was a potentially lethal bullet wound that's good enough and the same evidence is good enough in this case and the causation evidence in this case to be clear was overwhelming defendant had been faced with accusations from taylor's friends family that she had adulterated the drugs that she gave taylor and had intentionally killed caylee so seeking to clear her name she voluntarily went to the police she gave a detailed recorded statement explaining how the day after taylor was released from six months in prison defendant gave taylor crack cocaine a crack pipe to bindles of heroin and a syringe the evidence showed that leading up to her death taylor spent the day with her family out in the open behaving normally seemingly sober and it was only after she received the drugs from defendant that she immediately secret sauce in the bathroom and died shortly there after the medical examiner testified that taylor consumed religiously large quantity of heroin resulting in morphine couldn't consider the cocaine that the defendant delivered but only here on is occurring it's correct that the cocaine wasn't charged as so the jury needed to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the hair when  caused taylor's death using this court's definition of cause meaning contributory cause and the medical examiners testimony was absolutely that the heroin contributed to taylor's death and how was  first by giving that elements of of the offense so they were they were instructed that to sustain the charge the state had to prove that defendant knowingly delivered the heroin that taylor injected him or just did that heroin and that taylor's death was caused by that injection inhalation or ingestion and then and it wasn't necessary to buy that the axe with a saw and media causing the death so those instructions in combination with the multiple limiting instructions telling the jury evidence of cocaine is only for purpose of defendant's state of mind and a coherent narrative adequately informed the jury that the heroin was for cause ation was not intended by the general assembly when it drafted the statute and because it's not constitutionally required under birch this court should not depart from star decisis to redefine causation  holy grail the holy grail as that is the statute of the charging document and when the i p i doesn't adequately follow the charging document it if you look at it if you look at the i p i the i p a it follows the specific language of murder it follows the would have die but for the use of that here and then the states fail under this statute to prove prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt  clearly says this the instructions were lacking so we ask now that the court take the next stop and apply the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard to the trial or error and if the court does that there is no other conclusion that th