suicide a consideration of other crimes evidence at the trial level the complainant testified that march on mines had previous to the shooting robbed him and hit him with in the draw with a pistol and that evidence at trial was considered as other crimes evidence against mr mines we're asking this court to consider look at this second district court decision in the village of kill there versus one year which is a two thousand and eight decision yes your honor i believe that it would have been would have been admissible in this case however just as in the second district case there were three separate crimes that that if it was charged with and they agreed to try them all in one proceeding the trial and  year the court specifically noted that there was no objection made there and presumably all the witness testimony at that one proceeding could have been used for any purpose there as well just like in this case presumably with no objection can consider the evidence for whatever purpose they choose yet still the court and money are decided that given there was no objection that clearly the issue was was forfeited in their view but they still analyzed the issue under plain error and they came to the conclusion that it's not the fact that this evidence was somehow improper in fact they stressed that even in that case that evidence would have been would have been relevant relevant to prove the mental state that would have been a material in that case so they went out of their way to say the first step is to determine whether or not  come in you know properly under other crimes in that case just like ours presumably it could have been the next step is does the fact that it was considered suicide what you know what relevance does that back play and whether or not there was an error committed and that's where the court you know admitted that there were very few cases directly on point and it's sort of a almost a continuum of other cases where where the defendants had alleged that the trial court had exceeded its proper neutral role pacifically sided you know with the fact that when the issue comes up it's one thing if the trial court says you know state is this an issue i should be considering defense if you have a response to this and promote a dialogue have a point that's one thing and they presumably courage that type of discourse but the one your court had issue with sort of bringing up an issue without putting it out there for the parties really to deal with inviting any sort of invitation or response from the parties and instead just saying going forward i'm you know not what they you know could have done had they said nothing about what did the court what impression did the court give when it so a spike a decided to consider this evidence of other problems which is typically you know brought out by the state and usually there's a response made by defense counsel that point at least an opportunity to respond what about continuing with it and then it would have to raise the issue up and correct that there could have been a variety of ways that the evidence would have been relevant would have been material and could have come in and we're not disputing listen is this an issue counsel can i can consider this for other crimes ever should i consider for that and get a response or invite a response from the parties when yours is definitely not saying that that a judge cannot create a record and protect themselves  certain can but when they're doing it money would certainly stamp of the proposition that they need to be careful that they are not they're not appearing to act on their own as an advocate of the state and i certainly sympathetic to those views but in this case we would have would have wanted the trial court to at least inquire a little bit about the issue and try to ask for response from the band's consul at that point if there are no further questions on that issue i'd like to move to the second issue which is that if if this course police court police and finds that there is sort of substantial compliance with one of the various firemen hansen's when the alternative would ask the court that certainly that the most severe one the twenty five years in adult life which requires a  there's no reference to that the requisite you know the level of harm that was produced in the case so turning to the issue we do believe that that the clear purpose and intent of the statute is to provide the defendant with pretrial notice at some point before trial of the for back the state is going to proceed to see the sentencing enhanced to based on the particular facts necessary to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and this case mark timelines received a twenty five year enhanced minute for the use of a firearm personally discharge that resulted in great bodily harm there was no reference to the amount of harm in the indictment there was a only the reference to be shot about the body in the in dictment itself for these purposes it's relevant and important that a defendant accused have pretrial notice of this of this intent because the state the prosecution obviously has great latitude in how they  communicates what that what the state is intending to do and in this case the fact that you know at trial even i mean the amount of damage was extensive to two mr richards and there's no question that in the record itself however the fact that they chose not to include any reference to that in the indictment itself is a signal that they they're not to be seeking the twenty five years to natural life in this case that sensing enhancement was significant relative to the at the punishment for the underlying offense in that it was in excess of the punishment so he received twenty years for the attempted first degree murder and twenty five years in addition to that for the sensing and han to set the stage that after that the judge then was the first the first person in the courtroom to bring up the enhancement and the judge first said that isn't the client subject to twenty to eighty years plus twenty five percent saying that he has right after that point your hon certainly correct defense counsel stated correct range should be six to thirty plus the twenty five year plus twenty five year enhanced man however the requirements of the statute are pretrial and whether defense counsel knew at some point right in this case where we're not disputing the fact that the injuries were extensive the record establishes that clearly and i think it would it would be disingenuous to suggest that there wasn't some information that certainly that the complaint was was severely hurt and injured through the crime however given that the state has great latitude in what they seek to prosecute how they seek to prosecute it given that given the facts just because the facts you know some of the fact not just a theoretical potential but this is what the state the state is seeking to do this is what we are what we want to do having knowledge that information can be heavy but material to defend it in and how they want to see us because the case law as it's developing on this issue seems to be fairly clearly heading towards some form of heightened scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny has been employed by the first history on several occasions and it seems to me that w the question now seems to be the second amendment appears to apply and some form or fashion outside of the home and the question is you know to what extent and what extent it can be regulated is l r the lightest it's the latest and that it that's correct and under intermediate scrutiny that the dissent justice neville in that case actually would have found that the aggravated u w statute was unconstitutional as it was disproportionately brought to its objective and the majority however did employ intermediate scrutiny and they have held the regulation good morning may please the court rather murky on behalf of the people of the state of illinois now as to the first issue that was previously addressed your order to the state's position at the evidence of the earlier incident was admissible and perfectly considered by the trial court and there was no display of judicial bias whether it was in fact or whether it was in appearance  motion especially given the fact as justice landcare indicates the defense counsel his trial which was going into this issue equally as much as as as the prosecutor was so for defen the truck or did not abuse its discretion in the building itself the evidence at the time of trial that he stated was other crime evidence but it's the state's position today that this evidence was generally admissible i thi intertwined to what happened to the charge case that that this case this evidence is simply generally admissible evidence because it's part and parcel with the charge conduct now with out this narrative of what happened before and it seemed to happen pretty it happens to me before the charged incident occurred there was evidence that the witness was rob he admitted that he was selling heroin he identified the fund as a person who had him with a gun and then and then stole his money and stole his drugs at that point the when this immediately calls his brother his brother comes the scene he goes into his brother's car he gets out of his brother's car and goes looking out for the defendant in this case who he soon sees and who and who shoots went looking for that and that i don't see trial that when he goes into that other building he first starts out at twenty three thirty cells strip state street goes into twenty four forty ross up the stairs goes there the second floor window looks out the window sees his brother in a crowd of people including one individual named blue man who was not a thug that tanks correct at that point he comes down and he sees defendant was evidence that the judge had to hear because without that evidence he would have no idea what brought the victim to that building that he didn't live in why his brother was called to the scene because his brother also testified so what his brother was going at the sad she thought victim was reaching for a gun well why would he think victim was reaching for a gun if there wasn't this this prior incident that happened so therefore state's position that this was this was part of the story of what happen court said that you know this this ruling is based on the circumstances of this case a very unique circumstances of this case that three separate indictments different time different place different day different victim charging different tights and they were heard at the same time i believe there was a so temporary eighteenth incident in october seventh incident and there are proper night incident in undirected verdict the october seventh in the october ninth cases were directed out so the key is while those cases were presented to the court those incidents were charged conduct that wasn't uncharged conduct so therefore the the defense at that as i stated before scarcely intertwined with the charge conduct in money or those other cases don't really explain the circumstances of the case that was eventually that eventually defendant was found was found guilty upon your every defendant also makes the argument that you know there's just display of judicial bias but but first i would say there's no judicial bias if the judge is just trying to hear the full story  seeking the village is important and allowing defense counsel to respond to the villages are so in this case we have that the defendant had every opportunity to object and west all close reading of this case and there was no there was no motion presented to the court to either it met or or keep out other crime evidence so i believe defendant is trying to distinguish case from that case saying in our case the judge was acting to a spontaneous but if you read those those opinions it was it was narrative evidence of what was happening for the charge conduct and there was no motion so the judge in those cases when it was in effect sue aspired to considering that evidence whether those other crime evidence relevant just to show the story of what happened or that it was simply admissible evidence if there are no other questions as to the first issue i will discuss the second issue as to whether the twenty five year old has spent was proper your lives defendant has forfeited this issue as was indicated by justice quentin there was no objection at sentencing or or in the motion to reconsider sentence and the stereotype is that if an indictment is attacked for the first time on appeal a defendant must show prejudice and in this case defendant is unable to show prejudice when the state complied with all the statutory requirements for separate but he was sentenced within the range that the proper and handsome it was was a twenty five year hands and that just shows that everyone was operating under the same belief that the state would be seeking that twenty five year enhanced in addition in fact when he was you know the counsel what was in one brought up the issue of the twenty five years and context if you simply correcting the court that's very different right right that's what he was doing he was the judge misstated what the sentencing range was and he stated what the sentencing wage was but in that statement he states what in fact the state was looking for in that enhancement and and what he had noticed of based on the language and also the fact that the victim was a double amputee quadriplegic in a wheelchair in court it is further indication that that this was a case of of great by the her imminent disability but it was still it was still causation i believe that it was proper aggravation and the fact that somebody shot about the body several times with a firearm that in  and of itself is going to be great by the arm or permanent disability proper standard is intermediate standard that was the standard that was adopted by the recent cases by this court by the third division in al gore and the sixth division and rovs those cases cited the relevant federal cases sense the heller and mcdonald decisions and those federal cases adopted in the intermediate scrutiny of standard so the state's position is that  intermediate scrutiny is is probably that the stature must be substantially related to an important government objective and it's our position in that case in this case that that preventing gun violence he takes issue with that of yours it's the state's position that the the majority was correct in that case in applying or in stating that the second amendment something that happens certainly outside that's correct and that very well may have been the case however for for the purposes of the statute that this court is analyzing today that court this statute provides on those who are in mcdonald cases in that not only as i stated before not only just statute clearly provided provides the exception except when on his or or his or her land or his or for possessing a gun in his his second amendment he experienced his protection beyond the second amendment that that there can't be a determination that the statute is overly broad the statu just to create points on rebuttal first with respect to the second issue regarding the firearm enhanced meant our position that we've argued for in the breeze is that that was a weight sentence and so therefore the fact that it was not objected to at the time should not stop this court from reviewing that issue additionally under plain error certainly being sentenced above and beyond what the state had indicated they were going to sentence you on what would qualify as a substantial right that had been implicated at that point so we would we but there was one point made i just want to clarify based on my notes of the record at the at the sentencing the judge was the first person to bring up the twenty five year hansen and he brought it up in the context of isn't the defendant subject to twenty to eighty years plus twenty five years so just to clarify that the twenty five years did first come from the trial court and the defense counsel confirmed no it's six thirty plus twenty five so just to clarify with respect to the second amendment issue and  in analyzing people versus aguilar we would just note that roger already did uphold the regulation in question it does not stand for the proposition that the second amendment categorically does not apply outside of the home that that position you know it clearly abandoned the earlier rational basis test that was applied and the fact that the court no longer applied rational basis but applied intermediate scrutiny suggests that there is certainly a constitutional right that is implicated outside of the home it's just now a