also have five minutes for rebuttal you'll see the digital timekeeping device on my screen when time is expired or have you have all these remember no photographs and only the clerk of the court is permitted to record these proceedings today degree murder there are six elements of self self defense affirmative defense but nd degree murder only requires st five those st those elements are unlawful force of stretton against the defendant the defendant was not the initial aggressor the danger of harm was imminent the use of force was necessary and the defendant subjectively believe a danger existed requiring the use of force applied in this case the state only contest three elements that mr harris was not the initial aggressor but the danger of harm which was intimate imminent and that the use of force necessary necessarily conceding that unlawful force was threatened against mr harris and that he had a subjective belief that if a danger existed requiring  of force applied when considering these factors there are only has to be some evidence even very slight evidence that a mitigating factor existed in this case where some evidence exists consideration is appropriate of  nd degree murder even when that evidence is inconsistent conflicting or doubtful credibility your honor it's mr harris proved the three contested elements at trial by a preponderance of the evidence as to the st contested element mr harris was not the national aggressor there is plenty of evidence to suggest that mr harris was attacked st the state relies on speculation defensive action by the victim in this case shredded to suggest mr harris was not the initial aggressor however there's no evidence just gets to support the state's conjecture that mr harris was unlawfully present at mysterious apartment nor is there any legal support that this would make him the initial aggressor on its own mr harris testimony presents evidence that he was trying to resolve an argument with miss de when she stabbed him he did not grab a knife or any other weapon until after he was stabbed by shredded day it's important to note that this case is not the same as others for the use of force was unlawful in people versus sloan from one thousand and six a defendant argued that he went to his ex girlfriends house to visit his child both armed with a shotgun and pushed his way into a house in that case the court found that a nd degree murder charge was not appropriate similarly in people versus met alero the defendant did not have a self defense theory where he was kicked out of a bar and came back fully armed your honor struck this case it's important to remember that mr really mentally ill and that he suffers from depression and advantage dr cuneo diagnosis or persistent depressant disorder and borderline personality order speak volumes here in the in in the incident that took place in this case mr harris likely felt like he was in question away again by a loved one as happened several times before in his life shredded a whole knife on him while they were having an argument and she stabbed him st without provocation at least some the state relies on side disparities and assumptions about the relationship between harris and ms day to suggest that the danger of hama was not imminent however the state come fails to come to terms with the fact that no evidence suggests he ever invited any harm or that he failed to retreat there's no evidence to suggest that mr harris quote walked up on ms day after she asked him not to do that i don't know how you're going to end the room that is the end wouldn't that be being attacked he then defended himself and while he may have stabbed her more times that he necessarily needed to he was acting under an unreasonable belief in self defense and he he was attacked st and the fight lasted long enough to spill out from the bedroom into the living room had quote a brutal upbringing according to doctors unio which mean meant that he felt abandoned for his entire life being stabbed put anyone in the state of mind that their life was at risk let alone someone with mental and it'll actual functions of a child year old doctor if you know did state that he could take care of himself but what that amounts to is that he can find his way to a bus stop and he can buy food for himself but he is not necessarily in terms of his going to lecture mental it billie's the same as a grown adult with those life experiences and tack onto that is brutal upbringing from dr cuneo as well as his history of depression and substance abuse disorders this whirlwind of intellectual mental substance abuse disabilities creates the proposition that mr harris effectively is a child in terms of culpability but stopping their counsel isn't that the reason he was found guilty but mentally ill so he he was given some deference because of those disabilities correct yes your honor however and again along the stuckey also the nd issue that  not actually consider those mental and intellectual disabilities the evidence shows that there wasn't true consideration of how these disabilities affected mr harris and his culpability in this case state of mind when defending himself and also speak to his culpability in terms of his sentence in this case your honor as for those reasons your honour's because thank you enough for those reasons your honor it's because of mr harris's intellectual meant mental disability because they affect his culpability and his ability to understand and appreciate what his sentence means we would ask this court to either reduce your honor is a may please the court my name is michael lennox and i'm here on behalf of the people of illinois and might i say it's truly an honor to be before this court this morning your honor is this court should affirm the defendant's st degree murder conviction and sixty  sentence because the defendant cannot prove the necessary elements of self the fans and because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing but i found within the statutory set the statutorily set limits first this court should affirm that offenders st degree murder conviction because the defendant was the initial aggressor the danger of harm to the defendant was not eminent and the use of force was entirely unnecessary now th can squabble over whether two we believe self defense was present here but that is not the standard of review the standard of review is whether after viewing be evidence the light most favorable to the prosecution applied and to the defendant the defendant's belief was objective the reasonable to drop the charge from st degree to nd degree the defendant is not required to show the object of the his belief was abducted lee reasonable however the statement gates any one of the elements of self defense the defense fails your honour's the the trial court rationally found that the defendant was guilty of st degree murder because he was the initial aggressor the defendant emits two having been kicked out of the victim's apartment the day before the incident which can be seen on page five or one of the record where he says when speaking about the victim she told me she told me she told me that i need to get my things and leave on the same page he confirmed he had not told his daughter he had told his daughter that he had nowhere else to go he also admitted to being kicked out and the state's exhibit a and ninety five the record he states when i came into the bedroom she had taken the knife out of her purse she said alvan don't walk up on me and again and the state's exhibit a minute for forty five he says i was walking up on her and she said alvin don't walk up on me and that minute nine hundred and ten he says she pulled the knife on me talking about don't walk up on her the defendant has not authorized or was not authorized to be in the victim's home and advanced on her in her bedroom after she had told him not to come any closer making him the initial aggressor your honors the trial court rationally found injury as previously stated that the defendant testified at trial he followed the victim into her bedroom he watched her pull the knife out of her purse he heard her tell him not to come any closer but despite the sight of the kni and the warning not to come any closer he still approached her the threat was not eminent because he was given every opportunity to leave book prior to being stabbed and finally your honour's in the self defense a rgument the trial court rationally found that the defendant was guilty of st degree murder because the defendant's use of force was entirely unnecessary the right of self defense as the  district court of appeals states the right of self defense does not justify a person committing an act of retaliation and revenge nor does it permit one to pursue and inflict injury upon even an initial aggressor after the  aggressor abandons the corps and the st district court of appeals in people vs none the court states if one responds with such excessive force that one is no longer acting in self defense but in retaliation said excessive use of force renders one the protagonist a non aggressor has a duty not to become the aggressor not your honor so in the defendant's own oral argument he just thousand two hundred and ten pounds at the time of the crime the victim was physically disabled with one like four inches shorter than the other for ten and ninety pounds as previously stated the defendant was told to leave the defend disarming the victim and the victim and the victim ended up in the bedroom where the or or ended up in the living room away from the knife that had been dropped in the bedroom terminating the threat to his life the defend stabbed the victim with the knife he had taken from her and the defendant stabbed the victim over ten times and colluding to stabs to the left one to stab so the right one and one to the heart all of these facts are important in the consideration of whether the use of force was necessary and it's clear it's clearly excessive and retaliatory force that was unnecessary  since the defendant failed to prove all the elements of self defense necessary to reduce the charge of st degree murder murder to nd degree murder and since that offended cannot show that the trial court acted so rationally that no was recently reversed by the illinois supreme court and people vs county without the appellate case the defendant has no basis in any authority to support an intellectually disabled adults de facto life sentence being a proportion proportionate penalties cause violation at most the defendant critiques my reading of card here but provides no authority to overcome his burden under an abuse of discretion standard absent an abuse of discretion by the court as providing people are stacey absent an abuse of discretion by the court the sentence may not be altered on review the defendant was convicted of aggravated battery which is a class x felony and the classic start another illinois supreme court case a penalty violates the proportionate penalties clause if it is cruel degrading or wholly disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of community now the the court in carty provided that an intellectually disabled adult diminished capacity may reduce culpability but it also made the defendant a continuing danger to  and since the trial court did not abuse discretion in sentencing and the entire basis the entire legal basis for the defendant's argument in a defective sentencing was overturned this court should affirm the your honors briefly on the bottle the state argues that the defendant cannot prove the elements of under reasonable celt fast in support of this the state are you said mr harris was kicked out of the apartment by shredded day saying mr harris on language that she you know said something about me being kicked out however in that section of the record shortly thereafter he says he did not believe he was kicked out but that they were merely having an argument so mr harris likely did not understand even he was picked up by mistake that he had been kicked out and he was there simply to resolve an argument they were adding over text message nd the state argues that ms de repeatedly said don't walk up on me but there's no evidence that he ever did approach her again after he was born in fact he told her i was just showing her by my cell phone i was trying to show her the text message argument that we were adding and trying to resolve things on my end the states like us chris is better for the argument that it's dangerous not imminent self defense is not a reliable defense however the danger was a mistake call a knife on mr harris and then she stabbed him st before he made any move to approach her or  your honour's that the state argues that the defense has no legal theory as to the nd issue however the nd issue is primarily governed by an abuse of discretion while we are talking about orson of penalties clause and the supreme court's recent ruling  court it people versus cody overruled the st district case and the defendant relied on in his opening brief of the supreme court's decision of people versus cody is not a categorical bar or ship elkins clause claims by mentally intellectually disabled  less culpable but more likely to have to re offend such a reading of cody in the categorical sense in a totality sense would effectively render mentioning intellectually disabled defendants laden criminals who are simply people who need to have the highest sentence possible given just in anticipation of committing a crime this cannot be said to be a proper use of the justice system the defense in the state also cites to th rehabilitative services punishment requires careful consideration of the nature and circumstances of the crime the defendant's conduct in the commission of the crime and the defense personal history including his age demeanor habits mentality credibility criminal history general moral character and social environment that is what mr harris is arguing in the nd issue your honour's at the trial court did not consider the totality of his life circumstances when giving him a nd they effectively told him asking for this court to find him not guilty of st degree more murder or descends into a sentence for which he for which his crimes do not account although mr harris is asking is that you take into account his mental an intellectual disability his lifetime of rejection an abandonment of depressive disorders of substance abuse disorders and realize that this is not a fair trial part of a fair judgement or a fair sentencing trial court should recognize that mr harris is as was discussed with justice worton effectively a child in terms of his culpability and his ability to understand what his sentence actually means for these reasons we would ask this court to reduce mr harris a sen