specifically pertinent to this appeal the crimes of criminal damage to government supported property and driving under the influence of alcohol we submit that there are your medieval errors are very medieval gaps of the evidence i will say that if like particularly the proof offered at trial taking all the evidence from all parties from all witnesses into account as to the claim of criminal damage of government supported property we also submit secondarily that there is an issue as to the credibility of the primary witness trooper mccully as to the hate is of the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol which taints the evidence in that case sufficiently to undermine confidence in the judge's finding this is a bench trial so it's your orders though the standard saying it was a bench trial and so the standard is if the evidence is deemed by the court to be so unlikely or inadequate as to leave an resolved a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt reversed sold would be required that's people versus jefferson from the supreme court in one thousand nine hundred ninety so where's the reasonable doubt the reasonable doubt we submit is particularly as to the criminal damage of government support of property is with regard to the element that the of the the final element that the state must established beyond a reasonable doubt that the property damage was supported by the state of illinois funds or state funds or by federal funds administered by state of illinois agencies ok you can prove the fact beyond a reasonable doubt was circumstantial evidence crime yes structuring you can is this vehicle that was damaged had illinois state police written on it correct yesterday it had illinois state police license plates yes your honor and the only state police trooper came into court and testified that was my police car that he kicked the window o of the crime that has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and at the that the state is aware of this because they brought in trooper michael cutter the fleet manager for the illinois state police for the purpose of establishing this all and well who do you suppose buys those cars but that your honor that i think a wild guess yes i will take a wild guess that day i suppose that the everybody in the room would say that we suppose that the state of illinois buys the cars but the testimony of the trooper catarrh was that the cars are acquired by central management service systems and he had did not know the source of funding of the central management systems if they were acquired by the private organization mothers against drunk driving for instance your honor he would have no idea about that you would not be able to he would not be able to dispute that were you the trial attorney the defense attorney i was a t didn't you have an opportunity to cross examine the fleet manager on that point in probe the issue a little bit more once he said he assumed that the cars were purchased with tax dollars did you ask him or pro s m what he believed the source of funding for central management systems was i believe because i was as far as he could trace the path of the cars he did not know how are they were titled with and in losing their retitled whether they were least borrowed or acquired by purchase and i i believe that when i received the answer that taxes i'm assuming for the state of illinois that quote were the source of funding for central management system record to support your position that it was not established beyond a reasonable doubt that these cars were purchased operated or maintained only with with tax funds but you know we're confined to this record that we have that you appear in the trial court only issue with regard to the felony offense of criminal damage to property you believe was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the issue of whether the the the car was purchased with state supported funds i submit that there  with regard to the defendants in times to actually break the window there the record shows that he testified that is his foot slipped he was if he was restrained in the rear of the vehicle in a somewhat uncomfortable position unfortunately he was not able to be here today but he these completing his probation to the extent that that's where the relevant but he was not able to be here today but he is over six feet tall he's quite a tall person who is in a very uncomfortable position in the back seat of this vehicle and refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test be admitted on cross examination that he actually did not offer the breathalyzer test because of the circumstances of the arrest  there was a video that they don't they're the there is really only my client was upset he had his young children with them at the time that he was arrested and that i would have to say that he was of the troopers said he was killed dury had trouble restraining him but my client did not and he was upset he was somewhat agitated by the mentation police report though the officer wrote that he had clocked your client traveling one hundred five miles an hour when he stopped the car he noticed a strong odor about the hall found a two year old child sitting on his lap was not properly restrained is there anything about those facts that were included in the police report that you feel judge on reasonably found to be credible i think there was some issue as to the that the trooper is actual identification of the vehicle when he came upon the vehicle there was a video of the video feed of the arrest that was offered by the state at trial and it was a counterfeit when the when my client's vehicle first comes into view it is actually stopped at the roadside and so there's no actual charged with refusal he was not not convicted of not charged with obstruction of justice or anything like that and you can be convicted of dui it without a blood test area or brother alcohol test right absolutely just as a policeman who's got a the report asserting that there was a refusal by the defendant to give the breathalyzer in contrast of the testimony we're actually we didn't offer him the probable as it was well but then that goes to the argument seems to be that as a matter of law that inconsistency in the report rendered the trooper not credit incredible or and insufficiently credible and you've never seen a case and said one inconsistency in a report makes a witness as a matter of long incredible or not i've not seen that case you know if we did that would be the first court you've ever you're aware of that would say that right i'd submit your honor that that it's actually something that i've not evaluated your honor but i think that a divergence between the officers sworn report and or with the officer's report which he attests and prepares in the course of doing his job at the time what police officers ordinarily do incident to a traffic stop and in this case of the u i stop so there was quite a bit of time other the children there were small children in the car that had to be dealt with so the i would not suggest that the the field sobriety test as depicted in the video that was offered at trial not so conclusive as to my client's purported evidence in the light most when there's a that attack on the sufficiency of the evidence look at the facts evidence in the light most favorable to the state and decide whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found the client guilty of these offenses grant that's correct judge yes all of the thinking so going back to the car isn't the only reasonable conclusion that that car that only state police on it with illinois state police license plates driven by the illinois state trooper was paid for by the taxpayers of the state on the judge it's not an unreasonable conclusion however that the cases are the from this court people versus anderson and of from the second district people versus bartlett this is an issue that the courts look at in the courts just the proof of whether the property damaged was actually state supported car and the moves by the troopers we convict people of murder sometimes when they don't even have a body and nobody saw him doing it while joe killed fred wadded words the body well we know what we haven't seen for a long time and we're pretty sure he's dead we just ok and nobody saw this guy do it so on circumstantial evidence like that nobody nobody they we put joe in prison for life for killing fred when they haven't found friends body and nobody  correct your honor this is a case where the proof actually is in the control of the state of illinois maybe not particularly the state's attorney's office for the third district but nonetheless it's in control of witnesses in the state of illinois they have access to the records and they want yes but it's not an issue isn't whether they could have come up with the title of the car but it's whether they needed to to do it is really an issue before us right where they could have put on more evidence is not the issue that's part of the issue is the issue is whether the evidence that they did put out it is satisfactory to a staff to afford proof beyond a reasonable doubt not the dui but you're appealing both of them today actually there's three cases one was ten c f two one six ten d t the dui two for four and ten t r three six six eight which is a speeding charge and  i have the same concerns as is just carter or notice of appeal only has ten c f two one six were these cases consolidated in the trial court the word consolidated for trial i don't i can't point to was at one trial everything was one trial they did inducts of the case and was so that i would but your client was sentenced to thirty months probation correctly you're correct your honor he would not have great so i'm a little confused as to which order you intended the appeal to apply to because when i read the notice of appeal it says order it sounds singular to me yes ju always daunting to come up when the court is so active with questions i know they please the court counsel under the first issue a defendant does not contest of the criminal damage to occur to the illinois state police vehicle the only that see as c s i was funded quote through taxes i'm assuming for the state of illinois the fact that he did not know where the source of the funds was do that does not negate that it was from the state of illinois and you are you would agree that circumstantial evidence that's our position in that it was from the state of owning an archer pretty is an assumption good enough for proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an element of the offense no i misspoke it's not as i mean based on our interpretation he stated state of illinois the only question is that he did not know the source of on the loop or did use the word assume and i think you did inadvertently i mean doubting him crack they did call him that's what was that's what his quote was through taxes i'm assuming for the state of just the fact that you do not know the source is not negate the fact that it was from the state of illinois and defended to not at any time or by or cross examine the officers testimonies so the testimony was unimpeached and we feel that this issue is pretty straightforward it was uncontested that the squad car was the state's watch court a state squad car driven by state police officer and that in essence is circumstantial as well as his truck testimony and for the second issue we trooper to save you've got a fellow who's a belligerent combative and you're going windows out what have you to assume the two consider that a rift his refusal to cooperate  really that big an inconsistency to begin with i mean our position is that it's not a major inconsistency it does and downplay its credibility the officer clearly testified to all the other factors that he did a witness such as the divine in feeling all the on the report but it did not negate his credibility in the trial judge is the individual who determines the credibility of the witnesses and ways of ends of court hit some i'm sorry the trial court had some confusion her inability to believe that the defendant as well because the defendant didn't remember the he was actually transported moved into somebody else's squad car with been ticked windows in the cage in the back and he insisted that he had ridden in the same s with the broken window so you know in terms of credibility didn't the trial judge discuss that he found defendant's version not very credible i mean or she was giving on her rulings she did mention that that there was an inconsistency between the police officers testimony and the defendant's us warning as to what occurred and when he was transfer and how he was transferred into another vehicle when you look at the videotape of the scene of the pier co operative  the procedural question just as carter raised in that is the notice of appeal only includes the the felony case number the state has not made an issue of the fact that the dui case number wasn't noted in the notice of is your position now that you're aware of that because our jurisdiction is limited in we can't just go into issues that aren't properly preserved with that notice of appeal i mean if it hasn't been brought up with the divine and the state purchased by drug forfeiture money either the cash europe or our forfeited cars vehicles and so forth would that make a difference legally as to the defendants argument on becomes a state's money in my opinion crime hope but not necessarily mean there was a gentleman named richard meadows that traveled the state he lost his daughter to a drunk driver shauna was her name and he made it his mission before the state raised funds to put video cameras in squad cars he made it his mission to get as many video cameras out of his private monies into squad cars so the state really does have an obligation and it's a pretty easy one to meet all the prosecutor has to do is a little homework before trial and so he can trap or she can track those funds to tax monies in i do agree that defense counsel makes a good point here that the state dropped the ball but how would you respond to that argument it's an easy thing for the prosecutor to prepare for in my opinion i think the state provide enough information and evidence establish that it was their state of illinois we reduce the charge is there another offense that might have by i would say there be remanded at that point i don't think the charges are even reduced because it's on something that can easily be cured at trial and can it be remained it has been double jeopardy court we don't have an audience like this so i appreciate that it was a little unnerving think you have counsel in your rebuttal argument and just for the audience your rebuttal argument has to be confined to those issues that we discussed with  jovi and you can bring up any new issues you may have forgotten the first time around understood judge if i may so i did want to clarify one point that justice carter asked me about it this is not specifically rebuttal but he asked what i missed out or you may object monier concession from trooper carter that the central management systems is funded by taxes i'm assuming for the state of illinois he did not know that the funding source of the central management systems people trooper covered could be a phenomenally competent sleep manager for the state of illinois that's a substantial job he's got a lot of cars to maintain a lot of inventory and maintenance issues of the vehicles as well as tracking where they are who's driving and who's using them he may not know it you apparently did not know i submit the source of funding of central management systems and of the funding it was used to if any to trial and that would not be subject well given him you know you rely heavily on the bartlett case right yes don't you really think that was correctly decided i mean this guy damages a county it's a jail right jail is government supported know that there would not be your order because there is the prevalence more and more of private prisons and that's becoming an issue in many fronts however in the in the case of  illinois department of corrections prison or of a county jail that i think that a lot of people would assume that it was but for an assumption to be reasonable the inference is it doesn't have to be the only one just has to be reasonable rates with the fact that that could have been just as this case this car could have been donated by god knows who ok exactly just but they had doesn't negate the fact that the reasonable assumption is that  the taxpayers paid for that car the fact that there's another assumption out here it doesn't have to be the only possible conclusion right just has to be a reasonable conclusion the guiding light is on the sufficiency of the evidence is there a chance that somebody was wrongfully convicted there's a reasonable chance of records and if a reasonable possibility is not excluded then i submit that that leaves a reasonable doubt which would undermine the number meant to put on the order was the felony but on the guilty findings all numbers were put on that one orders are correct yes that's correct so they made of movement might have made an error that's not including all the case it clear that this witness of those who are taking would those competent the response of did not know he he made assumptions as to the source of the funding he did not know what was of the fundies is that government of what's the exact them government supported properties and yes that's correct well what if was to suppose somebody did go in a discard of the state is it unreasonable to assume that the this trooper or the he says that's his assigned squad car that he puts the gas in it with the state credit card and so if there if the state if somebody else gave the car the troopers isn't the state's putting gas in a change in the oil replacing the tires that that's government supported property and not the case thought is it's got to be acquired with state funds or the world supported with state funds or with federal funds administered for state purposes and i submit that the state did that the case i would require that the actual acquisition cost of the vehicle that was damaged be means that you never before purpose of this dance you leave the state supported property i think that that would be that is your i'd submit that that would probably not be a government supporting our property and  arguably every month dollar the state gets comes from the citizens yesterday some most of it in voluntarily through taxes and so what's that because somebody voluntarily gives the money to the state what's the difference if now the state owns the emphasis of the charge of the of the crime under the bill and i compile statute sort of a criminal code is clearly not a government supported property of the state law perfect timing is a thank you very much for your patience and cooperation here today we'll be taking a short recess for pamuk change and hopefully rendering a decision without undue delay