next case in the call this morning is agenda number nine case number one zero eight seven seven eight people in the state of illinois versus really gonzales and i represent the people of the state of illinois on march second two thousand and six the parents of little three week old baby are experienced every parent's worst nightmare their baby it was taken from them she was stolen from  she was literally taken from the arms of the father by the defendant who fled with her and for a period of time they did not know where their baby was the evidence the trial established that the defendant had actually faked her pregnancy she could no longer  children and so she faked a pregnancy and on march first she told her husband that she was going to have her baby of course her husband knew that she could no longer have children instead the defendant look for a baby to steal she found fantasy clinic where she befriended the the parents of baby r while the mother left the room to make a telephone call and while the father got in line to felt some paperwork the defendant offered to hold the paint me instead the defendant fled with the baby and some time after she fled she wrapped the baby in a hooded taal that she had purchased there morning for a period of time the parents didn't know where their baby was the father ran outside to look for the child the mother fled down  squad car they went in in the neighborhood but they couldn't find the baby thankfully that baby was found by an alert security guard about fifteen minutes later and rushed medical center who notice the defendant with the baby and the baby was reunited with the parents after a jury trial the defendant was found guilty but mentally ill of aggravated kidnapping and unlawful restraint however the appellate court reversed the aggravat kidnapping conviction the appeal court reason that because the baby was constantly in the public view of public awareness there was no secret confinement which is a element aggravated kidnapping the question therefore before this court is did the actions of the defendant constitute secret confinement there is no statutory definition of secret confinement and therefore pursuant to the rules of statutory construction this court must look to the words popular and ordinary meaning first is to the word confinement when you hold the baby in your arms when you literally carrying a baby there can be no doubt that the his confinement hidden kept excuse me hidden concealed not made public but importantly the definition then goes on to state particularly in law kept from the now which of the persons affected by the act in people versus mulcahy this court ruled very very clearly that you can have secret confinement by the place of confinement and the secrecy of confinement and this is the most important part katie this court recognized that kidnapping can take different forms victims are now not all put in the same places it is interesting because the victim was kidnapped and the victim was secreted in her own home and so this court noted that the place of confinement was secret but the language of this court makes very very clear that the confinement was also secret because even though the victim was right in her own home her husband didn't know where she was in people versus bishop which is a case even older than people versus mo katie the victim was kidnapped and was taken an automobile and way back in one nine hundred fifty three the defendant heart feud well this isn't secret this car is on the public why there's no way this is secret but this car looked at the facts and it recognized that it is easier to keep a victim secret just not at all your honor the stick the secret confinement definition clearly includes keeping something from persons affected by the a this court's precedent clearly recognizes that confinement can have two forms it can be the secrecy or it can be the place of confinement the essence of kidnapping is that kidnappers ability to keep their victim a secret in the case of a three week old baby that baby can cry out that baby can't do anything to let anyone know it's a victim so it is very easy to take the baby and take it in your arms and keep it a secret and it doesn't make any difference let's look at the facts of this case doesn't matter where the baby was taken doesn't matter if the baby was put in a building doesn't matter if the bill baby was taken in a car or does it matter if the baby was kept on the street at the end of the day the parents didn't know where the baby was and that is the essence of kidnapping and the interesting thing about this case is that the defendant's family know she couldn't have children anymore therefore the  baby was more secret if it was kept on a public street than it was if the defendant had gone home and put the baby in a building because the family didn't know that she couldn't have children and therefore the sicker would have been all it is very very important that this court clarified the essence of kidnapping in this particular case the appellate court said the words they said the kidnapping can be achieved either by the place of confinement or the secrecy of the confinement or of either but in reality they didn't apply this court's word they looked only to the place of confinement a newborn baby is a most defenseless victim when you take  baby and you steal it and you go away with that baby certainly they have constitutes the crime of kidnapping in this particular case it's a trier of fact issue a reasonable trier of fact in this case that jury for i think that the act was completed i think she took the baby and she didn't need to take it somewhere that would be one e two of kidnapping but under a one all she needed to do was secretly confine the baby so when she took the  this is a guilty but mentally ok so but the fact that she acted strangely doesn't change the fact that her taking of the baby wouldn't ordinarily arouse suspicion and whenever this court decides of course  president for other cases the taking of the baby there is nothing about a baby that would alert anybody else the suspicions she was a woman who was carrying a baby even if the baby was crying no one would they would know it was a baby but they wouldn't know was a victim of a kidnapping and that's the reason that she could take the baby it's not necessary for her to take the baby any more special to make her guilty of kidnapping don't you want what you meant by case by case  yes yes that would be all we get yes that's how those all were that's true but at the end of the day it's a question for the jury so i under the facts of this case then the people would submit that the jury correctly found that she committed aggravated kidnapping and that she secretly can find the baby the defense is arguing that her actions don't fit within the statutory definition but at the end of the day the people would assert that when you take th and to make it clear to the lower courts that kidnapping doesn't just mean putting somebody in the dungeon you know that's the archaic way of looking at kidnapping but when it's a young child it's not necessary to put them it's they're not fighting back they're not doing anything to cause the members of the public to help them or do anything so when you look at it from the kidnappers perspective of the kidnapper is able to keep the victim a secret of confinement which sometimes it is it could be very easily disposed of the way but the important thing is that this court has says it can be the secrecy of the confinement and so when you use the secrecy of the confinement you don't have to have necessarily a place of confinement you look at the kidnapper and you say that this kidnapper is able to keep the person a secret it's kept from the knowledge of the parents again in this case it didn't make any difference is it reasonable to argue that whether this little baby was taken inside a building or inside a car or carried on the street it was no more or no less secret it was secret because the parents didn't know where she was therefore we would the child was taken away from the parents yes there could be secret there are there are cases out there in the cases seem to hinge on a very individual facts and that's why it's so important for this court to recognize that secret can take on the ability of the kidnapper it's not an intent crime it's knowingly and intentionally confines and so it's that the kidnapper is able to keep the victim secret from the knowledge of others in this particular case what separates  unlawful restraint in this case it would be the secrecy of it because clearly the baby was being restrained but what the hell a court found is that the fact that the baby was  public way so to speak that it wasn't secret therefore it wasn't secret confinement therefore it was an aggravated kidnapping because of course again the that it's against her will is presumed under the statute and i mean he had that clearly you know the legislature wanted to protect the youngest victims they recognize that by putting that part of the statute there presumption in the statute so it's clear that reading the statute and reading the language of the statute the legislature intended for arguing that a really i did not commit a crime here in the conduct at issue really was charged and convicted on lawful restraint that's a felony conviction that carried a three year sentence children in these circumstances are not left unprotected as the state would have you believe the general assembly has developed a carefully calibrated scheme of statutes to protect children in these situations the kidnapping and related offenses portion of the code contains twenty different ways that a person can be charged and convicted on earth in those that includes unlawful restraint under the kidnapping code in particular there are three different ways that an individual can be charged and convicted first a one that's the secret confinement provision of the code that we're dealing with here secondly you can be convicted if there's force or threat of intimate intimate intimate force and thirdly you can be convicted if there is deceit or enticement now the important thing to know is that for the force and the deceit enticement provisions of those codes the statute requires only an intent to secretly confine there's a higher standard for a one there's a higher standard for the pr code that we're dealing with here that requires actual secret confinement so intense here is simply not enough and the test evidence simply don't fall within the statutory elements required for kidnapping as they were charged in this case the state cannot prove secret confinement both the state and even justice for jordan who is the dissenting a public justice concede that at all times the baby was within public view she may have been restrained as she was charged and convicted but the child was never can was never confined if the under these is if the facts and then that this defendant got into a car with the baby sitter confinement upheld the second thing that i'd like to point out is that the state's reliance on the latter half of that black's law dictionary definition for the word secret that's the language that reads kept from the knowledge or notice of persons liable to be affected by the act is is misguided and for and for several reasons the first is the state is conflating the word secret and confinement and arguing that if you meet that portion of the definition you set you have sufficient evidence for secret confinement that all kidnapping victims the same and certainly the general legislator we have tender years doctrines in other areas of the statute there is not one here and in fact if you look at the statute that for aggravated kidnapping the  creates an exception for profoundly mentally retarded individuals so you know where there are vulnerable classes within society the general assembly knows how to especially for him particularly protect them and statutes but that's not how the statute reads here and secondly if you look at some of the cases you know cites in particular and i'm blanking on the other name but there were cases where children were dragged and the child was dragged down an alley and prevented from screaming out with the threat of violence in the child was grabbed and her mouth was covered and even though those are ten and twelve year old children essentially you know they are like quite able to alert the public or right if she was walking down the street with the baby in a suitcase then we would have secret confinement here but because at all times the public was able to you know that the public was able to recognize the fact that she was carrying a baby i think that takes us outside of the statue and you know it and in fact in this case you have officer damien hopkins who watched around you walk back into that restricted area of the hospital you know he observed her acting strangely  tried to get the baby away he approached her and he apprehended her and he did all of that before receiving the call over the radio that a child was missing you know so the objective evidence here is that the suspicion of the public was aroused whether it was a baby or a type you know or a ten year old child somebody reacted to the fact that she was acting since suspicious and apprehended her and it's not obvious to the public that the baby is i'm sorry if it isn't obvious to you on the facts in this case the baby was partially covered by a small pink and white baby towel that was identified by multiple witnesses as being a towel that would be used for a baby and not an adult they were all able to both clearly see the candy here on baby they see the baby could see the baby yes there was a witness within the clinic that identified that informed mr rose where that somebody had left with the baby there was a witness outside of clinic that saw her really with the baby and communicated that to mrs o c whereas and then you have officer hopkins at the hospital who also saw her all you know in there with there is clear testimony on the record that they knew she was carrying a baby that's true but you know and i don't tell you under those circumstances and clearly the intent even in this case was that eventually she would take that baby into a house or car and some at some point confine her but until you remove her from the public view and actually confine the child you're not within the statue and if you if you think about it it makes sense from the general assembly's perspective because once the child is confined there is such that the risk of danger is so heightened for the victim that it makes sense that he would punish and treat the confinement separately than just taking away in the public view you know most of these cases this this case is a rare instance of really just a case involving unlawful restraint and kidnapping most of these cases is is confined within something whether that be a house or a car the suitcase or or whatever but no she hasn't completed the crime until she removes the child from public view and in this case you know hypothetically hypothetically we can imagine circumstances where someone has the baby in public for this extended period of time but clearly she was going to confront you know her she was in route to confine the child she just never she was you know apprehended before she reached that point  attempted kidnapping i apologize i do not know when that constitute kidnapping are you saying i think i do the terms of the statute under the case law you can't confine the only way to confine the baby in public is just somehow make it so that the public is not aware of the fact present right so the only way to do that in fall under the statute would be to have the baby you know fully confined within a coat or in a suitcase or something so that the public was not aware of the fact that a baby was present that's right so you know at the end of the day or rather was always in public view she was always in a busy public clinic on a busy street or in a busy public hospital the baby was clearly restrained nobody is arguing that this conduct is not criminal or simply arguing that it's not aggravated kidnapping the child in this case was never confined and because of that constant public awareness the appellate court properly overturned aggravated kidnapping charge in this case and we ask this court to affirm that decision thank you thank you sometimes the best place to hide something is in plain view of everyone that's what happened in this case it's clear that the baby was confined i'm not sure how the defense can get to the baby wasn't confined the baby was carried in the woman's arms how can there not be confinement and yes of the super component there is absolutely no need for the legislature to amend the statute the statute says secret confinement in this court and a single case his court has decided that you have said that you can achieve secret confinement by chill ways the place of the confinement and the secrecy of the confinement of either to adopt the defendant's argument would render this court language absolutely meaningless because it would mean that the only way you could kidney up a baby is by placing the baby somewhere somewhere like a car somewhere like a house but that's not what this court has said this court has said that the other way that you can disable secrecy is by the secrecy of the confinement not just the place of the confinement so therefore if this court looks at all that prior decisions all of them are here given can you happening this court will say that when this child was taken and this child was taken from the parents and the parents didn't know where she was it didn't  know she was because they were persons affected by the act if false or really squarely within the definition of secrecy she was confined and i think it was the day she was secretly confined the jury's verdict was