the issue in this appeal is whether a person who has the taint age twenty one and therefore has aged out or outgrown the juvenile division of the circuit court can be prosecuted as an adult for a crime committed while a juvenile and for which he was not subject to a mandatory transfer while a juvenile there are only a couple of facts that i want to emphasize for you first of all the state conceded in the trial court and also concedes in his brief in this board that mr five bash was fourteen years old when client was subject to a mandatory transfer and they also made no argument in the appellate court challenging the trial court finding that the charges in the indictment were not subject to a mandatory trance so we have before you today a question of statutory interpretation and of course the laws clear that the context of the statute must be considered even hundred sixty they were interpreted all of them to mean that the miners age at the time of the violation of the law the term and whether adult prosecution was a in all of these cases characterized the statutory language as a question of prohibiting criminal prosecution so just one example is the griffin case that i cited at pages  twelve where this court said there are parts of the juvenile court that in which the legislature has determined that of minors age at the time of the prohibited conduct will determine the applicability of certain provisions one section expressly provides that whether a minor who engages in prohibited conduct is a the link which is determined by his age at the time of the conduct the sections providing that a minor may be transferred from juvenile court for prosecution as an adult contained expressed language making transfer dependent upon the minors age at the time he committed offense there has been no amendment of this statute or going on fifty years of mr work through the statutory language you just referred to and griffen that is or is not the but to that effect in case after case after case indicating that the court understood that actually to mean that you had to judge this question by the age of the defendant  ways my argument is that because of these repeated decisions that the statute is unambiguous and if you look at the entire context of the juvenile court there there's th three tiered framework for dealing with crime committed by people who are juvenile that when you're under thirteen years of age you can never be prosecuted as an adult when you are between thirteen and seventeen years of age generally you are your cases heard in juvenile court and the juvenile division of the circuit court and it's only with certain limited exceptions that that case can be taken to an adult court and then once you turn seventeen all cases are in the adult court so if you look at the structure of the ad if you look at what the purpose of the  which is to deal with crimes committed by juvenile then it's clear that the statute means what it says that if you are between thirteen and seventeen and you're not subject to a miniature a transfer your case must be addressed in the juvenile court and so you argue that in this case thirty should be no prosecution at all for the state points to the statute of limitations the section that indicates that a case can be brought ten years after the minor victim trying to be eighteen let's not suggest that the legislature intended for prosecutions to take place long responses turn twenty one well i have a few responses to that argument number one the juvenile court act was enacted a full year before the statute of limitations was extended for these types of crimes and yet at the time that the limitations were offered for adult cases no change was made in the juvenile court expressivity no change was made in the limitation of the age of twenty one when all proceedings see so that so the legislature knew that that provision was in the juvenile court and made notes so that's number one number two is i don't think it's altogether clear that in these extended limitations apply to juvenile case especially discretionary trans case and number three the juvenile court act at least the version that applies to this particular case has a four year window for people who are detained the age of seventeen until they're twenty one so even though they may have committed a crime at age thirteen sixteen what ha there is still an additional four year period after they become seventeen when the state can initiate petitions and when the state and handle the case in the juvenile court definition of minor into the statute in that that would indicate that it would be read as prohibiting criminal prosecutions only to those restricted class of individuals persons under the age of twenty one and the twenty three year olds who are not subject to the i don't think that changes the analysis your honor what it says is once you turn twenty one basically you're not in juvenile court any longer but it does not say is once you turn twenty one the state can indict you in other words they're drawing a negative implication from that language or from the way they want the statute to be read that because we can't adjudicate your case in a juvenile court we must be able we must be able to prosecute you as an adult that's not what the statute says it makes no such implication and again if you look back at the context then the purpose of the entire juvenile court at the purpose is to handle the problem of juvenile crime in a special division of the circuit court have i tried to answer your question when you actually go can happen from time to time and i think it poses a rather difficult question what are we going to do in those types of situations where the individual let's say was nineteen or twenty years old and it seemed like it was taking a long time to indict and then he turns twenty one and the grand jury hands down these charges then what is that what is the situation here what is the bird are the rules of discovery now opened up to determine whether the state intentionally delayed the prosecution of this person is the defense now allowed to inquire of family members of victims of other witnesses of other police officers as to why it took so long to indict so are the discovery rules now broader in this situation and i think it also means that in a situation like bound it it doesn't matter whether they delay if you rule as the state wants you to rule and the state can do what it wants what difference does it make if it took them three months to indict or a year to indict or whatever it's still the same problem is there any suggestion in this case occurred no but there's also no suggestion in this case that my client absented himself from the jurisdiction that he tried to hide the crime that he threatened the victim he ran away nothing like that i mean the state suggests that repeatedly in their brief that you know this will give an incentive to people to avoid every henschel and so forth and so on but that didn't happen and i think it's a bit of a stretch to say that someone who's thirteen or sixteen or eighteen is going to be sophisticated enough to know that if they delay things just a little bit longer they're going to be out  the the question then arises is this if the statute is not an ambiguous what do we do in this situation and certainly we have a case in which different districts emphasizes is that it's important to distinguish thirteen and fourteen year old from older minors and if i could just pose a hypothetical let's say that my client my client crime was discovered when he was fourteen years old what would have happened at that point the state's attorney furth would have made a judgment a discretionary judgment that can't be overturned as to whether to even seek transfer of the case to adult court i don't think that's a given in this case at all let's say they went ahead and they filed a petition of some sort to transfer the then the juvenile court judge looks at this case and considers all the factors that are in the statute you know his age the family circumstances his background his lack of a criminal record all of these things looks at the best interests and then makes a determination whether to transfer him at all a discretionary decision that as a practical matter no reviewing court is going to overturn so the judge can keep him out of adult court and if he does or if she does what's the worst thing that can happen  he can go to the juvenile department of correction for approximately six years and that's it so it's a very different scenario if the state has the unlimited ability to charge anyone with anything at any time and you'll see in the brief there's a discussion about the possibility of lengthy prison terms and so forth and so on it's a starkly different scenario and it's a scenario that the juvenile court never contemplate the whole idea is to protect people who commit juvenile crime protection extend to a juvenile who becomes of adult when he's charged certainly certainly because it's an arbitrary matter that time has passed it's arbitrary vary as to how much passed the juvenile court can't effectively handle this person anymore because of his age but why does that mean that the state that he has the authority to go ahead and prosecute him as an adult when the statute doesn't explicitly give them that authority and when the purpose of the act is to keep him in a special i think i'm doing better intern questions on the left now so i'm just wondering about the application of the prosecution itself it seems like it can't be applied evenly across the board if you have one hundred two counties and one hundred two states attorneys so each one might decide to apply this kind of rule yet you know differently what is it that happened before that maybe this is coming up now is something about this that that is it is  there a way to apply this particular rule evenly across the state i mean the rule that the state wants you to adopt your yes rule that if we were to agree with the state how can we be sure that that with the protection that someone like mr five ish would have had had he been in juvenile court at a younger age now what they're essentially doing is dispensing with  offered by my opponent is faulty at its premises because if fails to take into account the clear and unambiguous language of the juvenile court act which is premised in the first instance on condition which is that the individual be a minor right but what what i'm getting at is if you could wait a relatively the state could wait a religiously short period of time in some instances were they could get someone in corps were they quit into a year or so before for example you depending on the circumstances may or may not have been able to get him into the adult court right there is a possibility that there would be cases i think r is actually the example of the case where the state proceeded initially in the second district by virtue of a juvenile petition that was filed and after a year had elapsed because that action was brought with that minor was twenty years old after that action was brought and subsequently there was a superseding indictment that was brought when that minor became twenty one to be perfectly clear the people don't have the unfettered discretion as the defendant has suggested to bring any charges when and how we feel like bringing them were subject to the law and the law is specifically set out in the juvenile court act and it provides for protections i don't really that there is a well articulated comprehensive scheme the difference is that i see more for de chanst to how the system more so where you have in infancy prohibits under all circumstances a blanket prohibition on the adult criminal prosecution of anyone who commits an offense who's under the age of thirteen and you have under this well articulated legislative scheme at the other and individuals who are adults over twenty one who are going to be criminally prosecuted in the middle range fall the juveniles and based on the age of the juvenile the nature of the commission of the offense which they're charged with and in the juvenile court or to allow the state to wait a year and get them directly into a joke or hear that you think that was the end to know and i disagree with my opposing counsel that there would be no remedy in the event that abuse of process which is what you are you're alluding to would be used to prevent someone who is a minor and individual on her twenty one years of age from entitlement to a discretionary transfer hearing and aside from the fact that there are specific findings of fact in this case that there was no abuse and the evidence of record shows that with him i believe three days of this incident being reported to the police department in arlington heights that charges were brought with respect to the cases where that wasn't done so we're talking about the case of the second district and people versus regiment who side of the fourth district and people versus b admittedly there is troubling lack of proper procedure am frankly lack of understanding of the provisions of the juvenile court act at play which do not appear to be necessarily because there any intent to abuse the process there is a profound misunderstanding of the provisions of five one twenty and what it says and that's evidence putting aside this question and i will return to it of what happens with the twenty year old and the potential to lay because i'm going to give you a simple specific answer the more troubling aspect of it for may is the fact that there are criminal charges being sought against people who cannot be criminally charged under the infancy statute and there was no recognition of the fact that you cannot charge people who are twelve years old as adults in criminal court that's the first problem with those cases going to the second issue where both calls for that's what should have transpired whether or not that should have resulted in a prohibition against ultimately because there is some advice re typed language that happens in the rich decision as to whether charges can or cannot be brought which frankly is only within the purview of this court to go there but they sort of went there and said there can't be a prosecution prosecution in the future whether that was correct is a different story because arguably under this court's decision and people versus brown there could have been a retrospective discretionary transfer here or in brown as the discretionary that there be a retrospective discretionary transfer hearing that based on the outcome of that hearing it or the conviction would or would not be a firm but justice thomas speaking specifically to the concern of redress for pre indictments away and the cases talk about the united states versus marion case and the two prong tast that would be applied so in response to the what happens and where's the remedy and where is the burden i don't think there's any question but that a defendant would have a right to file a motion alleging that his enticement should be dismissed on the basis of pre and i meant to lay and then there would be a hearing that would take process in it and the test which has not been absolutely clearly defined by the united states or it talks about two factors and one of them is the prejudice to the defendant and the other one is whether or not there was abuse of process basically and intends to abuse the process on the part of people and certainly due process then the audience or contemplates of the only reason for the question is based on prosecutorial abuse or lack of prosecutorial discretion of corrector scratching in a certain manner but i'm thinking more in terms of the fact that if you if this particular defendant had come under the juvenile court and the only way to get him into adult court would be a discretionary therien him and the judges wayne real billet tate of potential and everything else that that by  necessity goes back to that date that the person committed the crime that he is now it's looking at a thirteen year old earth was seventeen year old in looking at it and making a determination whether that should be tried as an adult i mean that's a separate question than whether or not it was abuse that there was prosecutorial abuse in waiting a year or so they knew that they could get him into adult court you see what i'm getting  wrote in his dissent in luis are a straightforward plain reading of the juvenile court act indicates that people who are adults individuals over twenty one by definition are not entitled to the protections of the juvenile and the purposes and benefits of the act this operates consistently with this court's holding in jamie p where the court said with respect to your question just that the overriding purpose of article five of the juvenile court act is not what my opposing counsel is telling you it is it's clearly articulated by this court to have been dealing with delinquency in those under twenty one and that is not this defendant and the protections are still there for the abuse of process it's certainly of a legitimate concern but it doesn't alter the fundamental scheme that's been put in the in place by the legislature and when you yes you and me though that you mention one five vs one twenty yes it seems to conflict with one dash five if so which  control and why i mean doesn't it seem like there's a conflict between five one twenty and one if you're referring to are you referring to five one five that all persons under the criminal code are subject to prosecution for any offenses that they commit because to the state's way of seeing things no there isn't one dash by a group you relied upon was relied upon by the state which provides that a person is subject to a prosecution in the s renders all of the juvenile court acts in a political ball and it's consistent with the entirety of the act because if you look at the entirety of the juvenile court act every section of it is premised with a minor whether we're talking about charging decisions and where and when and how or treatment of minors at the hands of the police interrogations cust odi questions everything indicates that we are talking about individuals twenty one years or younger and anyone who falls outside of that twenty one year point is no longer subject to any of the protections of the juvenile court act otherwise you end up with an absurdity but doesn't buy dash one twenty used the word m yes proceedings may be instituted so that it's the grants of authority for treatment under the juvenile court act and it is not my argument to be perfectly clear that the absence that the authority to prosecute people over twenty one springs from five hundred twenty all we're saying is the entirety of the defense argument in this case and richardson which is also relied on and in which the pilatus pending is that five one twenty prevents a criminal prosecution against an individual who is under twenty one and i am not saying that five one twenty authorizes that i'm saying it does not prove preclude it and the grants the general grant power is founder of the criminal code and specifically section five slash one dash five which allows in the broadest of language prosecutions for any and all offenses committed by all persons and this defendant is a person under the criminal code and as such subject to prosecution and not only is there that extreme grant of power but as justice thomas was asking about it works in tandem in this particular case and in the cases all that are have been reported to date with extensive limitations period for sex offenses which have to kill or concerns that attend  in my opponent's brief he writes that all statutes of limitation are arbitrary there is nothing arbitrary about the set all if you look at the the genesis of this extended limitations period it has increased over period of time and that's under because it understands the legislature is recognizing the particular concerns the scientific component with respect to d n a the fact that there are young victims and there are delayed outcries the fact that there's a stigma that attaches to these sorts of offenses that is not necessarily at play with respect to other offenses and with respect to the statute of limitations as it operates in the context of this case the defendant's argument takes the statute of limitations which would be twenty two years from the date that this offense was committed and cuts it back to a period of seven years and my point is made an argument well but that said that statute of limitations period wasn't enacted until after the enactment of the amended juvenile court act that this came later so which shouldn't be looked at as undoing what he believes as clearly expressed legislative intent to preclude these sorts of prosecutions but if you go back to the period of time prior to the enactment of the amended juvenile order act there was still an extended limitations year of a minor of an eighteen year old of a miter victim reaching the age of eighteen so there's always been legislative intent to deal with these particular allies sexual offenses in a specific way that allows for a longer period of time and it is inconsistent with that extended limitations period inconsistent with the very broad language of the criminal code section five slash one dash five to read the juvenile court at five one twenty as prohibiting a criminal prosecution of a defendant such as the state is this problem we're addressing h limited to only those instances where you're dealing with an extended limitations period and therefore sex offenses but there are any other examples extended term period  murders anything that would yes and that's actually an interesting point just the storm and because we're not talking about a broad based prosecution of again anyone at any time for anything t state wants we're talking about those particular crimes that fall within that extended limitations period or us sensibly under the exten limitations period for people who are not notoriously out and about in the state there would potentially be that possibility too i carry with opposing counsel that generally when we're talking about minors they're not going to be out of the is well aware the normal satch of limitations for not extended situations is going to be three years for felonies but to say that the juvenile court act is essentially a statute of limitations can't seriously be countenanced in the light of a specific extended statute of limitations which under the generalized rules of can statutory construction has to trump something that's general th opposing counsel saying this is basically statute of limitations it's not and it can't operate to eviscerate the clearly expressed intent of the legislature in an act in the sense of  one portion specifically the last sentence dealing with the in the minor at the time the offense was committed to the exclusion of again that word might or which as i've argued today is a continuous condition perceive it to application so the basis for substituting the definition for the use of that the term might or is because it makes it clear in no uncertain terms who is being referenced this is not some arbitrary word i see my time is up refinishing answer thank you so the defendant in in making that arbitrary argument relied on the fact that the statute as previously written distinguished between boys and girls and that the use of the term minor is just a convenience only if you go back again to that statute minor was clearly defined and that statute was found to be unconstitutional because it's a different age for the prosecution of boys and girls not because  legislature wasn't clearly understanding what we were talking about were minors he under twenty one years of age that's always been the case and that remains true today for these reasons and those is on the way i'm what about in that case what about in the case where the minor has been able to take off and leave the jurisdiction until way after he or she is twenty one  i think that raises the question of whether the adult criminal code limitations provision poling the statute applies in a juvenile i'm not sure what the into there and in other words one of your position today i mean if the crime was committed while with juvenile he would your she would have to be taken to juvenile court  position your position if the you're saying whether or not you can are you saying that if you if you find this minor who is no longer a minor is twenty two years of age that then the question becomes best person would be in the same position as your client right unless as i said the tolling provision in the criminal code for statutes of limitations has some application in that situation other words there's a provision that if you hide your self within the state or you leave the stay at the limitations or whole i'm not sure what the answer to that is i just don't know what difference it would make if indeed the crime was committed under your analysis when the person was a juvenile in any framework that adopts a statute of limitations whether it's turning twenty one or three years or whatever the case maybe you know you could say that if a person who's twenty one commits a robbery and the crime is not discovered until he's twenty four years and one day old it's unfair to the victim of course it seems unjust to the public perhaps but that's the law that the law has a policy that we're not going to allow these cases to go on forever and if you want to change not exactly what i'm saying is that the fact that there is a four year window after a person becomes seventeen years of age during which time that individual still be handled in juvenile court it gives the state additional four years to percy and once that person turns twenty one then the state can no longer proceed so it's not called that four year window is not all this is a limitation but it operates as if it were one and if i may i'd like to muddy the waters just a little bit what happens what with the state's position be if an individual instead of being twenty one were forty and committed to rob and was not discovered until he was seventeen years and one day old would they be standing here saying it can't be prosecuted anymore in juvenile court when that seems to be a consistent implication of what they're saying today that we're going to always follow the adult statute of limitation but couldn't the argument be different couldn't it be that until you're twenty one we can still handle you in juvenile court i mean this is raises a lot of question and i didn't find any law on this question at all it seems to me that it's much more obvious it's much simpler to say look david five that clearly was a minor at age fourteen when he's accused of committing these  why are we treating him as if he were twenty three when he committed these offenses that we're going to happen if you adopt their position he wasn't twenty three he was fourteen and they say well we have these others in this they can prosecute you know anyone and look if they're over thirteen then what's the purpose of yeah we're going to apparently they're going to  look at this as if the act does not exist because of the passage of time and just as burke was commenting about section one death by you know your honor i'm not sure that that statute is anything more than just a description of the territorial authority of the state of illinois if you commit a crime in illinois or you do something outside of illinois and it has an effect inside the land of lincoln then you know you can be prosecuted and of course the executive prosecuted but once again that ignores the fact that we have a juvenile court  and two if i can address justice thomas dump thomas this question for a moment you know there's another issue here with regard to cases which are difficult to investigate to determine whether there's probable cause to char it's not just sex cases either sometimes investigations can go on for a long period of time  how are we how are courts going to determine whether in one situation it was deliberate that the state a leg or something less than that whether it's negligent or whether they should have gotten a prosecutor out a few months earlier whether they should have interviewed other witnesses i mean this is a horrible morass and it just seems to be that the red line the age red line is what with things like murder when you're fifty but not murder when you're thirteen or fourteen when this is already something that the drivers in the area why are we importing some other standard statute of limitations of francis is that correct what are we going to do about other offense i mean statute of limitations would control right well i think that's the question of close forever because you were a juvenile at the time and we're not going to allow this type of problem to occur where the state can prosecute you later on arguments today you are excused at this time