thereby only presenting to the jury half of the picture or half of the applicable legal principles that applied in light of the evidence presented at trial here to begin mr crowder was initially charged with aggravated aggravated battery to peace officer this army a peace officer and a misdemeanor resisting a peace officer prior to his jury trial the state explicitly stated on the record that it would proceed out and thereby dismissed the resisting a peace officer out further pretty trial the defense put the state on notice that mr crowder would be claiming self trial court in a pretrial hearing did not make any ruling the court asked for jury instructions to address this issue accordingly the parties began trial and proceeded presenting the evidence trial during the course of the jury trial mr crowder was not the standing against a resisting charge he wasn't defending against resisting morality he was just defending against the charges of aggravated battery  disarming a peace officer the disarming officer morale and but that's the start of the jury instruction conference right before they started defense counsel told the trial court that mr crowder would not be alleging self defense and that's because as the trial evidence presented shows there was a witness booth a witness since then and a witness holiday who said that they did not see during the period that they witnessed the event they did not see mr crowder attempting to disarm or actually disarming wearily attempting to bite or actually biting murali so the defense at that point was that there would be no self defense that mr crowder did not bite or did not disarm officer mirali however once the trial court allowed the state's instruction number twenty dollars twenty one cents to be admitted that's one defense counsel and response defenses instruction number one which the trial quick tonight but the argument here is twofold st that the trial court in tendering the state's instructions twenty and twenty one  that the defense so mr crowder should have been allowed to tender his instruction defense instruction number one resisting portion that hit his defense to resist the morality during the arresting process was that morale youth excessive force and that excessive force that would be used against mr crowder was reason that defenses instruction number one was was was justified here was needed here for the truth to get the full picture to actually know that of course while a private citizen cannot resist arrest even if it's an unlawful worth arrest there are are there is a specific exception here that if the officer uses excessive force that  just got to your stand if you were swinging around and stuff like that well that's that's officer moralities position was that he was swinging and moving but mr crowder specific in which the chili also hurt so there's that slight piece of evidence that that mr crowder stated he submitted peacefully that he kept on his mother's door he raised his hands he turned around and that's when riley slapped the  incident lasted about one thousand and fifteen minute and most of this is taking place with just officer murali and mr crowder later on there's an officer parker that comes on the scene but that's after handcuffed at least in that one arm some of the witnesses say that he was his both of his arms were actually taken so there's witnesses simpson and holiday three different witnesses i think some of the witnesses state that's correct your honor so i guess the main point here is that initially when he alleged that there was no self defense needed that was because his the evidence presented was that he did not disarm that he did not bite officer morality but once the state put the resisting arrest at play that's when the defense came back and said hey if you're going to allow that instruction to come or those instructions to come in that mr mr crowder should be able to present the fences instruction number one if the jury of both picture and in this case it wasn't it wasn't that the jury just  y an engagement for crowder so this was an incident where mr crowder was not injured it began with the handcuffs that began with the wrist leading the skin cutting through the skin then it went onto the there was a medical report on it but i think if this court looks at the photos i think it's kind of up to debate because mr crowder stated that he didn't none of the witnesses that  sharon channa hands and i represent the people of the state of illinois focusing on issue number one the jury instruction which counsel for the defendant has to start you'd i'd like to point out three very fundamental flaws in the argument st the jury was properly instructed about resisting arrest there are two instructions that are used when an police officer attempts to arrest someone in its its charge it's a misdemeanor charge so he didn't know we had to defend against that and that these instructions are solely for the misdemeanor charge that again is flawed because  the misdemeanor is a lesser included offense of aggravated battery of a police officer make and because the lesson included defense it's not error to instruct the jury and the state has cited several cases and it's brief in which exactly that was done to say that and the reply brief defendant said he thought he would not have to defend against the charge three are exactly the same as this other case that only requires a three you have to defend against those three things you have to defend against them the lesser included offense by its name shows that everything required in the mr mean or had to be proved and the defendant knew it when he looked at the elements of aggravated battery of a police officer  and as and with also cited a very recent case two thousand and twenty which says that resisting arrest is a lesser included offense of aggravated battery of a police officer  to move on to the nd flaw in defendant's argument and that is that the defense counsel specifically told the trial court that he did not want the jury instructed on self defense and this instruction that the defendant later on wanted is just a mutated self defense instruction i mean let's look at the language in the two  to twenty five six as a person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself against the imminent use of unlawful for defendants proposed instruction not i p i instruction is virtually identical except it adds a language against a police officer went and went to the extent that he really reasonably believes and hears othe which the police officer has used excessive force in arresting the person and then it goes back to the regular language and the person himself reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary it's a self defense instruction so if if as defendant argues here today that after the state was allowed to lose use it to instructions he changes his mind what he should have done is just ask for self defense instruction i mean that's that's the law is i mean rule supreme court rule four hundred and fifty one says that if if the well no one said that the self and the fence instruction does not accurately state the law so if if defendant wanted to changes my afterwards what he should have done is just ask for self defense instruction as rather interesting that this instruction that he did put forward comes from an unpublished case people versus meters two thousand and fourteen  accurate statement of the law because you have to decide when the resistance came about that's that's and that's what is the flaw in this argument is that the defendant wants to say the police officer used excessive force well the important thing that accurate thing is when did that happen and that's the thing that if the police officer just law is because this instruction here i'm quoting from this unpublished decision that this instruction does not indicate a person is justified to use force only when the police were the st to use force  the use of force instructions are i p i instructions that are normally given in cases such as this and that's what that's what the discussion that counsel for the defendant was talking about  is he said i don't want a self defense instruction and and then they had the the jury instructions conference in which the the state argued that it wanted these u se of force instructions and they were allowed and then he he says well now i want my non i p i instruction and so does that answer your question your  honor thank you i'd like to move on briefly to the rd flaw in the argument and that is that there is not an i p o instruction that the defendant wanted didn't support his theory of the case it's crystal clear both in the defendant's testimony at trial and in the closing argument that the defendant theory of the case was i didn't do anything i saw that police officer coming i knocked on the door i told my mom a policeman is coming and then i sat down to put my hands up and i never thought where they might never did anything it was not that he was justified in fighting back it was that he didn't fight at all so if you get into this proposed not i p i instruction it's dealing with well i didn't fight but i had a good reason for it wasn't his theory of the case you you can't go through a whole case with one theory and then suddenly say oh i've changed my mind and even if you try where's the evidence that was presented at trial that he was defending himself the only thing that counsel cites as evidence that he was that he did make this self defense argument at trial is that he said he was afraid of the police officer well yes he was afraid of the police officer and therefore he didn't fight that was his theory of the case not he was afraid of the honor if you if you guys look at sanchez help brown and patterson if you're honest look at those cases the the problem there is that the jury was actually given a verdict form of the lesser included or the resisting arrest charge so this court looks at sanchez hill on patterson the jury was able to either convict him of the aggravated battery or of the resisting charge i believe there's some of the cases i think will be hell that discusses whether the jury should have been given the fluster included verdict or a lesser included charge  but all of these cases involve where the jury was actually given that opportunity or should have been given that opportunity to find the defendant guilty of the less then mr crowder actually did below would have asked for the self defense instruction and in this case once the state put the resistance at issue that mr crowder did cut the  for aggravated battery there's a knowing intent or the knowing elements right the intent element of for aggravated battery the insulting or provoked in contact and for resisting if the intent element is that the defendant intends to resist and once that what put that issue an industry crowder's case what's the state of the issues of resisting before the jury that's when the about that that element and that that's the point here is what mr crowder believes that he was only being he was only being tried for the disarming and the came into play once the jury was told that you know he resisted he resisted the officer and he can never resist the officer then for the truth to get that full picture and not just half the picture the jury needed that instruction to tell the jurors that there is an exception that when the police officer uses expect a force or stress off using excessive force then a defendant or a private citizen may have a justified reason or a justified use of force