chief justice my name is john no ak i mean assistant state's attorney from cook county and i represent the people of the state of illinois in this case these defendants commit a burglary when they entered this vehicle with intent to commit that when they punched that lock they grabbed the window and ripped from the frame of that s u v when they grabbed that window they necessarily i had to enter that vehicle because they both grabbed both the outside and the inside of that window the standard of review is well settled it's whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt it is the tr bax responsibility to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts and it's the reviewing court must allow all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution the trier of fact is not required to accept any possible explanation compatible with defendants innocence and elevated to the level of reasonable doubt this chord is explained that what evidence is presented and it's capable of producing conflicting inference as it is best left for the trier of fact to can we tell by the record whether that window if it swings up and out that is if it's no outside of the vehicle if that's the fact that fingerprints are on the what would have been the inside of the vehicle of any moment because  that window is no outside the vehicle your honor punching the lock itself is an entry because we also have even just punch it we also have additional evidence to show that that's what his intent was when he grabbed that window it was an outside the  still part of the vehicle the it's a can with door being opened that inside of the window is still part of the interior of the vehicle doesn't get a free pass because he punches the lock and he's able to get that window up but he in order to remove it he did more than just it didn't pop off when he punched that lock it was torn from the hinges it was torn from the hydraulic arm seen when he grabbed the inside even if it is come up a little bit so we can get his fingers in there that's still the interior of the vehicle there's an outside of the window and inside and by grabbing that inside that's an entry people court actually recognise any evidence of the state present any evidence as to i mean you're saying that he had to grab the inside of the window to pull it out and i'm just you know my my basic question is was any evidence prevented the defendants actually cared to in order to remove a window from a vehicle you have necessarily have to grab both sides it's just a scar scieno just in the descent the only way you could remove a window without touching the inside of the window would be to use some sort of suction device and that's simply not a reasonable inference based on these facts and we tell from the record whether the punching of the law released the rear window or not we can tell the victim testified that when that is on watch and press that that alone is the window to raise up with the hydraulic arms so by punching the lock based on her testimony that that's what allows the window to swing up that that allowed them at least to gain at least some entry to get their hands on to the window in order to grab it so in order because the she testified that the window was it was locked the but the window was locked it was closed  when she left her vehicle and so in order when they punched the beagle presumably the inference is is that the window came up with some walk but they grabbed it and the only way they could remove it is to reach inside yes yes because there's if there's an interior door you punch it and you're able to get the door to open a little bit and you grab it you've broken the plane you've reached inside grabbing that door the interior of the door is inside the house just like this of the victim nobody testified because there's no direct evidence as to what happened when they punched that lock oh so you don't know whether or not the window came up we know that the witness the victim testified that when it's operating normally you unlock it and that allows the window to swing up but it doesn't allow it to pop off the vehicle it doesn't just fall off you serious significance to the hinges were dangling  outside there is your honor because it shows that this window when they punched the waka didn't just pop off and land on the ground it did more than that and they had to physically remove it and it shows that given the damage the testimony showed to those according the victim's testimony in the inference the trial court expressly made they were on the inside of her testimony was that the the hydraulic arms which lifted out and hold up the window and the trier of fact found that that testimony and led to the inference that indeed they were on the inside and the appellate court in the majority came up with their alternative theory which was well that's possible that these hydraulic arms could have been on the outside and if they had been on the outside then the defendants didn't have to grab the inside of the window they could have just used them someone as handles to remove it without grabbing the inside the victim testimony and the trier of fact made the inference that those arms those hinges were on the inside and when this evidence when her testimony is viewed in the light most favorable prosecution certainly a rational trier of fact can make the inference that those hydraulic arm so hinges were on the inside that the only way these defendants didn't enter is if those hydraulic arms are on the outside because then they would have to reach inside to grab it but here of course they did and when this evidence is viewed in the light mostly or prosecution the trier of fact made a reasonable inference they also relied on this jacob case at a new york again this is a pretty jackson case from one nine hundred seventy seven and in that case they found that they relied on and said this is factually similar this was the standard they applied and taken and this is telling the chicken court said the evidence against it was circumstantial and we are unable to conclude that the evidence of deuced did exclude to a moral certainty every hypothesis but guilt and they remind on this case it shows that there heightening the standard of review and they're relying on these cases also in this mitchell case out of south carolina that was a review of an appeal based on the denial of a defense motion for directed verdict in south carolina they explain the court explained in south carolina that mitchell case innocent and the circumstantial case the state must present substantial circumstantial evidence which tends to again that's above and beyond the jackson standard years ago and pintos this court did away with the reasonable hypothesis of innocence standard and circumstantial evidence cases the jackson standard applies all three of these cases that the defense the public or majority play such great weight on don't apply jackson they apply this heightened standard for you and once this court and it's again exemplified by the fact the additional testimony that to try to get the public what majority wanted they disregarded the  several other appellate court cases where for instance reaching into an open truck bed is an entry reaching into an engine compartment is entry and the appellate court again recognize that when you grant the inside of a window that's an entry or anything in the record show that they had to reach inside the vehicle to get their hands on the inside of the window or was the window in fact swung out so that it sticking out side the view or work as your argument based upon the fact simply that the prints are on the inside and therefore they had to go inside or as far as that they broke both the point of where the window had been and they reached so your honor there's no evidence as to whether that window opened at all there's no way as testimony as to how far it opened because again there was no one there other than the defendant's there's no direct testimony as that but when the seven says you can light most favorable to the prosecution the inference certainly is in order for them to get that window off there is no possible explanation other than the fact that they had to break that close because whether or not at all what it was entirely close made i'm glad they're get their hands in there some d fully from the vehicle it's be a different case if they punched that lock and it springs off and it's on the ground that would be a different case it winders attach each head to different locations to the car into the w correct which attachment was removed one was on the ground and one was dangling from the frame so one was still on the vehicle and one was on the ground they were clearly damaged the testimony was that they were damaged the window  not designed at the school has been removed at both locations the party the car the party at the window there were no testimony about screws around or just that the the hinges those hydraulic arms were damaged one was on the ground and one was dangling from the vehicle still attached the vehicle showing that this would have been just pop off they had to grab it they had to rip it off from its inches it was not something easy to do it's not designed to come off and that there's inside of that window and that's what these two appellate court cases from the appellate court cited recognize that if you touch the inside of the vehicle if you touch that interior the window that's an entry that's an entry no matter where it is in that issue in the last five minutes mr becker you'll need to keep track of your own time thank you yes in responding to the state's argument i think justice burke's example is excellent where you have a screen door that opens up it's the state's apparent position that anyone stepping within that area would thus be within the close of a home but that would cause this court to have to make entirely new law for example let's say that the police went to a home where they have to have us a search warrant to stand outside in that arc between the screen door and the front door i don't think so i think that's a radical attempt to  expand the law this was a case in which there is no proof that there was physical entry into the vehicle here we had a position where the the window opened up it was removed from the outside and there was no evidence shown by the state was also the fact finder in the case couldn't he draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented and could we say that he was not rational and thinking that in taking minute window out the hands went into the vehicle yes you could rule that he was not rational when making that decision because he gave three reasons and this also goes into the standard of review this is a question where we're looking at undisputed facts so this is not something this is something we're looking at as a question of law it's a question of was entry as an element met under these undisputed facts do you take a exception with the fact that what was just sort of you have evidence was the defendant took his hands and went on the inside portion of the window and removing the window i know that wasn't the evidence in this case you take exception that they are in and of itself would be you know they have a finding that there would be entry i do if the window as we know in the evidence was was outward from the vehicle i would say even if he touched the inside of that window with his fingers while he was standing outside he clearly had not broken the clothes of the vehicle that would not be an entry similar to just a speck sample of the screen door if the screen door  pulled that screen door and yanked it off the hinges even though i touched what used to be the interior of that screen door that clearly would not be an entry and this i think is because i ask you a question i'm confused by this record was there evidence that the window was up and up but no one saw the window open that's correct no the position as you describe it no witness saw that there's no evidence that hunching that lock with some tool would automatically release that iraq war completely release the window there's no evidence to support that is there no just her testimony that there was a button on the exterior at once it was punched the window would lift up and so that's the evidence that we have to work with in the case so you have to also look at the purpose of the burglary statute which is clearly not met here with the analysis of the state that being that burglary as opposed to theft was designed at common law at least to prevent someone from going inside a dwelling at night time and having the possibility of a physical confrontation with someone inside that now is expend expanded to protected spaces but this was a case in which there was absolutely no physical entry into the vehicle whatsoever and the purpose of the burglary statute is clearly not not met here also there was a question about the hydraulic arms i think justice freiman post as to whether they were still connected to the vehicle there was no evidence again shown by the state that my client went and used an instrument and unscrewed the arms from the interior of the vehicle clearly one of the arms was still dangling which goes directly against that and fronts so and i again i would say that at that point was could be considered the extra  vehicle but the fact that we had one arm still dangling demonstrates that's net that is not how removal was affected in this case is there any evidence as to where that hydraulic arm was was it located the one still dangling inside the vehicle or outside i'm assuming it was on the outside there's no evidence though i don't know we don't figure assuming that but we don't know right right that's correct because in order to push it it would have to be on the side so i'm assuming that's what would be in a normal vehicle but no evidence was produced to that effect and also there was reference here to the fact that it was ripped from the vehicle that again would demonstrate to my liking that this was outside of the vehicle one might use another analogy of a close from sports for example in football a team can remain a long time in the red zone but it's not until they push that football across that imaginary plane or the clothes that you have a possibility of of scoring and i think in the same way here there's no evidence that my client ever entered physically inside the vehicle that he he pushed his hand or anything inside the clothes which this court has always defined and i know when mr novak also mentioned some cases other vehicle cases one being where an individual had reached in to underneath the hood to get a battery and a second one where an individual reached in to an open bed of a pickup truck that was of course are immediately distinguishable those are cases in which are the defendant went into any part  are of in other words the clothes was defined as the hood so when the hood was raised and when the defendant physically attempts to extract the battery that was clearly an entry as you have a question about the clothes sure there is evidence here that you suggest that button was pushed somehow that released the window yes was the button on the interior of the car on the inside of the car no he was on the exteriors and that comes specifically from this little testimony at trial so did the window just on lock i've she said to you this little said that the window open that the once you press the button the arms then push the window outward so that's the testimony we have from the complain and if there are no further questions then i will ask if you are from the judgment of the appellate court and i will turn over the rest of my time to missing graham thank you very much good morning your honor is again many men some endangerment i represent michael jones now like to just briefly address the cross appeal issue in this case there is hardly any evidence pointing to mr jones either as a principal actor or as an actor accountable for the actions of mr beauchamp the evidence that potentially pointed to mr jones as a principal actor came from a single sentence an officer frazier's testimony in which he said that he saw a white car with two men just got into the vehicle and the driver trying to start the car the trial court relied on this statement to assume that he had actually seen both men outside of the car and then get into the car however when mr officer frazier's testimony is taken in context it's that that's that might not be what he saw officer frazier testified that when he went into the parking lot he looked to the right and he saw miss little's vehicle with the amber lights flashing but he didn't see anybody out there if mr jones and mr beauchamp had actually been standing outside particularly mr jones had been standing outside mr novels or frazier would have said so while miss little when she looked when she was at the pay box and looked back at her car she only saw one man standing outside of her car and that man was not mr jones  no your honor no no i've had i think that this court may review the the the the facts that the trial court found where they were erroneous in this case there were there was reasonable doubt especially when we're we're looking at one single bit of testimony that points to mr jones as active participation and when that testimony is as ambiguous is as this that does show a reasonable doubt of his active participation the appellate court went further and said that even if mr jones wasn't outside of the vehicle that that he was still accountable for the actions of mr beauchamp but there's even less evidence that mr jones was accountable than there was of his active participation and there was no evidence that he assisted in the removal of the at it and the removal of the window there was no evidence that he was is it was his idea to remove the window it's no it's not even clear that he knew they were going into the parking want to remove  at all i don't think that would be the case i believe that mr beauchamp the mr jones were in a four door or maybe a two door car don't believe they were in an s u v like miss little scar was there was pointed out was followed to the parking lot well there was evidence that she was followed but again mr beauchamp was the driver beauchamp drove into the parking lot and he was the one who was going to drive away even if he was in view for example even in view of what was happening he's still merely present that's not enough to establish accountability in the third district case of people v matthew taylor a man was in a car with two of his friends friends got out of the car gathered rocks and threw rocks over an overpass and one of those struck a vehicle and led to the death of the driver the first district i mean i'm sorry the third district appellate court found that the man who stayed in the car wasn't accountable because he didn't participate in the offense he didn't help gather rocks it wasn't his idea there's there's no reason to make mr jones accountable for the account for the actions of mr beauchamp if all he did was sit in the car think that it might be too heavy for one grown man to take handle by himself especially when there's simply no evidence in this case that points to mr jones's active participation or anything that he did t know that they are being pursued by the police think i believe they were behind them they were in front of them the police were behind them i don't know that they were blocking their exit in any way and the call was rigged home i don't think the record actually explicitly states who the record who the car was registered to but it was definitely driven by this mr beauchamp the point is that there was no ten officer frazier never testified that he saw either of the defendants look backwards or rushing to the car or anything like that if they had actually really wanted to flee they probably would have been better off just wanting a way instead of trying to make their way out of the metro parking why is it ten o'clock in the morning if there are no further questions i would just like to conclude satisfied they stole that window couldn't be more clear they intend to commit a theft if the only element that's missing is the entry we have here is a classic a temporary that's what was the appellate court held in the newell case and in fact the davis case in which the appellate court relies so much that when you have the intent to commit that's clearly satisfied but it's the element of entry that's missing the proper remedy is to reduce it to attempt a temporary this contrast with the hamilton case that had to do with jury instruction before this court there was no question that there was an entry but if it was clearly inside the question there was whether the defendant had the intent before he entered to commit the fact though he had already entered and once he was inside he decided not to come in the text here and an interior and that interior part is is the end inside the car and go back to justice for example the defense counsel talk about the screen door this isn't like a screen door with the screen door there are two differences presumably with the screen door you've got the screen door and then there's an actual solid door so by opening that screen door you haven't necessarily entered the building but second it's a door it's got a handle on it you can actually open that door without touching the inside of the screen door you can just grab the handl open it there was no x to your handle on this window you had to the only way you could remove it wasn't designed to come off the only way through it is to grab it with all hands as example just a little bit suppose the door was fully open when the screen the plane is the solid to work then there's no entry but here we don't have that double door scenario we've got one window there's no secondary window that may or may not be open this is it this is that solid toward this is that window but unlike a screen door there's no way handle that you can just remove it without touching the inside which was just a scar see his point exactly in the descent you can't remove or open that we're window with a handle there is no handle then we can do it if you grab it and you rip it off and as far as defense counsel talked about there was press that is you press in that button and that releases the window to go up i believe it does because i mean the fact that the way the button works is you press it and that allows the window to raise up with the hydraulic arms that doesn't need a handle in order to pull it off and in order to falls off without actually entering to be the vehicle but here there's no screwdriver these point hinges are damaged that clearly he ripped it off with some force these defendants now as to the principle the jones argument as far as whether it was guilty is a principle or by accountability the trial court found both and the court actually agreed this defendant jones was guilty as a principal and even in the alternative as as accountability officer frazier and this cannot be ignored although defendant tries to he saw both those defendants outside that vehicle when he arrived with his in his more squad car with the sirens blaring he testified when asked what he saw when he arrived as follows he said there was a white car with two m just got into the vehicle and the driver was trying to start the car just got into the vehicle the reasonable inference that the trial court made i just got in means they got in the vehicle moments earlier and the only way the officer knows that is because he actually saw them outside the vehicle that's how he knows they just got in if he arrived on the scene and the two defendants were already in the car he would've said they just got it he said they were in the car and you leave it at that just got into the car and when you review that testimony in the light most favorable to the prosecution it's clear that the rational trier of fact could find that both these defendants were outside they were both actively participating but as for the accountability argument again you can't ignore the fact that this dependent jones was outside the vehicle he arrived on the scene with the jet with both champ in the same car tailed the victim's s u v into the metro parking lot she left they in between her leaving and the police arriving the two defendants had an opportunity to punch that lock forcibly remove that window and stashed in the back of their white waiting car which is adjacent to testimony from officer frazier adjacent to the victim's s u v it's a large window the trial court made a reasonable inference that it's a large where i know to an s u v not a small car it would take two men in order to get that in the back of a vehicle and again when the officer arrived he did not try to disassociate himself he jumped back in the car with both champ the champ was frantically trying to start the car he couldn't get it started by the time officer frazier put right up next to the driver's side preventing the driver  if jones didn't actually punch the lock we know he was outside the big hole he was with both champ at the start in the middle in the end he never disassociate himself this defendant was guilty as a principal and he was guilty by way of accountability and again your honour's when that's issues of