issues presented we have raised two issues on behalf of mr mitchell but the issues are interrelated the first issue are yes one where it is understood it that the murder occurred in indiana ok so was he taken to indiana and killed he was taken to guest so how did the kidnapping and in illinois if he was taken to indiana i would start my discussion with probably two two propositions in that case defendant was running a drug business he felt that the victim was was stealing he he wanted to punish or he committed sexual assault that the terms robbery and the term patrie are so well understood that the jury wasn't misled in any way as to what those offenses were similarly to kidnapping which most people understand taking a person from one place to another and in this case when you're saying the kidnapping stopped in illinois but there's really nothing in the record that supports that claim because here he was taken from chicago it was brought to the house but then after the house he was brought to the state of indiana  you're saying no he wasn't brought to indiana but he was going to remember sir paul was that he was kidnapped from illinois to indiana and there's no question this record that he was taken from a question today about whether the people prove jurisdiction beyond reasonable doubt and in order to put this on perspective i think it's really important that we start with the whole case which was in one thousand nine hundred two that kind of started this whole question and in that case the victim was kidnapped in illinois driven into wisconsin where she was sexually assaulted and strangled and murdered and in the neck easy illinois supreme court it was a felony and in that case the only supreme courts said in that felony murder case that predicate felony of kidnapping in illinois did not confer jurisdiction in illinois beside the jurisdiction statute that existed at that time the court stated that there needed to be an intrinsic relationship between the predicate felony and the murder and did not find in their case after the whole case the statute was amended and that is a very important thing to no acknowledge the change in the statute and they discussed that intrinsic relationship concept from hold this case gives this court the opportunity to acknowledge the change in statute and gives you the commission of the underlying plans to give the state the jurisdiction to prosecute this offender in illinois absolutely and sometimes courts were referred to that is jurors a geographical jurisdiction so that it doesn't get model where subject matter or personal jurisdiction careful to do that ourselves cracked and and very careful to note the change in the statute because when you research the issue and you were directed to the whole case there isn't a case out there that acknowledges the change in the statute and perhaps that's what helps muddy the waters this case is clear illinois had jurisdiction over this case simply because the jury was not given the definitional instruction on kidnapping and that's what we're dealing with and we're also dealing with this issue from the perspective of portraiture right so there was no instruction tendered there was no objection to the court not even the instruction of kidney correct correct but there was no problem or not that so there is no but there was no kidnapping definition and that's all we need to do was give the definition of kidnapping so the question is was there a bear it's a seated position is not grave there for two reasons why this isn't an element of the facts it's the predicate felony it's not an element of the pants the second point is is that this is any gap in the instruction can be filled in with what we know about what kidnapping it and as to any of those other questions that were brought up by counsel during an argument about the question of what ransom means everybody knows what they mean is matter of fact the definition as you noted of kidnapping from the instructions is the same as it is in the dictionary and them alone shows that there isn't any great error here and there was no confusion with the jury no notes or anything  the jury and as a matter of fact there there's an addition to being not prepared there's no way that this jury convicted defendant because they were confused in light of the overwhelming evidence we had in this case so there was no one here or there was no grave decided the hope was concerned about was in this the emphasis in both the hope for court said they were concerned about the conduct not some conduct or any conduct they were concerned about the conduct and that's the there was represented himself and i'm not saying we're going to cut this guy slam well i am saying is that this was a runaway train that was not held by the by the prosecution and of course was duty bound to instruct correctly our  system is that it is a system of laws and it's just not good enough to say that we cleared out of alleged evil doers off the street he had has to follow the law along with i follow and we ask this court to