the two issues on appeal are number one whether was error r l that testified with her dog on the witness stand and number two it was error for the state to elicit that r l was suicidal with the implication that it was because of the defendant abuse as to the st issue the dog on the witness stand over objection are all testified at trial with her dog on the witness stand the state had initially moved prior to trial for her to testify with the dog at the facility dogs which is a specific illinois statute requiring that they have to show that the dog is a graduate of a certain organization and for the court to make considerations including the age of the child and the rights of the parties in this motion for that the state argued that this dog was a therapeutic dog that helped r l cope with post traumatic stress disorder or p t s d and the defense objected prior to trial however the state withdrew their motion and according to the court it then contacted the deceased the court's disability coordinator for r l to testify with the animal as a service animal under the americans with disabilities act or the however no evidence was ever presented that this was actually a service if there was a hearing on this issue and the disability coordinator testified that he was only allowed to ask if the animal is required for disability and number two does the animal perform work for the individual and he testified that the work i was trying to do was to assist with coping with the mental illness both the disability and the court believed that they could not ask further questions about the animal and the court received some type of written report from the disability coordinator which was not shared with the defense apparently and allowed the dog to testify is a service animal this is error because the state court was incorrect in that it could not ask any other questions under the a d a s a minimum this court could ask if the animal was a snub or one of the service animals and number two what tests of the animal had been trained to perform here those questions were never asked and there was no showing that this was actually a service animal as opposed to an emotional support animal which is not required under the americans with disabilities act  they had said that r l the complaining witness suffered from p t s d however these records were not shared with the defense the defense had the peanut all the mental health records of the complaining witness and the court only allowed them to have the records from the dates of the incident in the indictment not for anything after those so there was no way to confirm whether or not she had actually been diagnosed with p t s d and the defense had acquitted of one of the counts there was no corroboration for the allegations there was no physical evidence and no confession it's understood that the court did install a gate at the trial to try to stop the jury from seeing the dog however the dog did jump up on our old lap during her testimony and the gate alone does not and do the prejudice the prejudice is the fact that the jury knows that she has an animal with her on the witness the jury heard testimony about the complaining witness going on fight right going to family parties being a choir practice but nothing with her having to be accompanied by a service animal the implication here is that something happened to her and the reason why she has to be accompanied by a service animal is because of the defendant we are not arguing that people with disability should be excluded from courthouses  situation is slightly different because it's a complaining witness on the witness stand this is not a member of the general public just coming into a courthouse or public library or cosco this is someone getting on the witness stand with an animal illinois has a specific statute to deal with the sill of the animals animals which recognizes the prejudice of the situation and here the state was able to avoid that by going under the americans with disabilities appellant cited numerous cases were courts have interpreted the eighty eight and more specifically have questioned whether or not animal is a service animal and whether the conditions of the eighty eight have been satisfied and other responses argue that some of these were unpublished however none of these were only rule twenty three dollars opinions and this court is able to look at any other decisions and deem them persuasive as well as there are many of the decisions that were published in the federal register and the main point of those cases are that courts are allowed to look into see whether or not this is actually a service animal and what it's been specifically trained to do and that did not happen as per the nd issue the state was able to was suicidal again with the implication that she was suicidal because of the defendant when r l testified she testified that she had disclosed the abuse an uncle online and that's why the police came to the state then tried to elicit more that she had posted online that she was suicidal this was objected to there was a sidebar in the trial court ruled that this should not come in the state however continue and our position is that this was a clear reference to suicide particularly as the state wanted to get this evidence in front of the jury tom pounding this detective detective doherty investigated this matter had testified that he went to our el house because she was making suicidal claims online again this was objected to however it was over a rule that testimony was completely irrelevant and the fact that she was suicidal especially because she was suicidal because of the defendant conduct under prejudicial that nothing to do with the investigation of mr tapley there already been testimony that the investigation started because r l said that she had been abused by  noble and that's what started the investigation and here is just another way for the state to make the situation more emotional the st words out of the state's mouth in closing arguments that i thought i would be dead before they came out and again this was not a harmless error for the same reasons as discussed before and with that i will finish my time and invite any questions from the panel thank you blindness or p t s d are allowed to use service animals in an effort to minimize in assisting with their disability limitations while in court correct ye and so that i'm clear on it that the your sole objection regarding the dog is the fact that the trial court failed to enquire of the true nature of r l's disability and whether the dog was trained to address that disability correct yes however if even after that it would be out in the you don't need to get some kind of thing of the defendant's right just in particular because he is on the witness stand the defense about the circus animal had kept by that there was no evidence presented that a rough i've been diagnosed with doing in your breed that the presence of the dog improperly invoke sympathy for the victim my question is didn't the trial court's eliminate instruction regarding the dogs present to remove whatever can escape and you brief you argue the trial court was required to make a test or functional enquire as to the exact function of r l service animal but you don't cite any law in illinois or otherwise to support this position you were unable to find any law to support this position i was unable to find any illinois state dealing with it and in fact i've been unable to immediately asked for the dog to be placed on the floor and that was done and there was no testimony solicited during that brief period correct that correct this in other words what i'm getting at is there's no comparison between the case before us and court a versus iowa or people vs often which was argue ok and my last question is couldn't are else testimony that she thought she would be dead before it came out be interpreted that she thought that the sexual abuse wouldn't come out during her lifetime and no one would sixteen year old complaining witness i think the more likely greeting is that that was a reference council father's testimony at sentencing explained a lot of the things that you complained of were missing in the courts inquiry on whether to allow the service dog to be present during our else testimony in terms of conducting an abuse of discretion standard are we allowed to look at the whole record to determine whether the trial judge  turn abused its discretion in allowing the service dog and if that's the case couldn't we consider the father's testimony i believe we could consider the the father's testimony the issue are however though is number one not subject to any cross examination and number two it also came up after the fact when this already had become an issue when the defense had objected to this believe this was after the motion for t which specifically rate this issue and with the trial the other concern is that it had relied on something from the disability coordinator that apparently was not shared with anyone so it's hard t it's a deer i mean but it wasn't a victim impact statement it was actual testimony that could have been subjected to cross examination correct it may have been i don't know there was there was no cross examination and the other issue with that then would also be they did not have the mental health records there was no way to contradict any of this already but the testimony did the trial court review the mental health records in camera  declined yet you provide them all right so he we presume to drop or at least i recognize that that what's in them is not in the record but the trial court did review that yes there there was an in camera review and then and i believe that was all of the mental health records which would have been up to the date of the trial not just limited to the periods of time of the alleged abuse no that was what was turned over to the defense correct all right thank you very much i just have a couple of questions most of the issues i was going to cover have already been covered by the other justices questions and i think justice bridges that alluded to this mr gable and all to specifically answer to the record appears to show well before the trial how did you respond to that in light of your argument that there was no showing that she suffered from a disability so it was it was my understanding that that was an earlier filing and then there was the later filing about the proposition that the use of a service dog in a jury trial at the request of the victim is not inherently or is inherently prejudicial and deprives the defendant of a fair trial do you have any cases that stand for that so they he put the special door installed he came down into the court room before hand to make sure what would and wouldn't be seen he had the witness come on the stand had a time with the dog trying to sight as much as possible and as we know from the records that would in fact occur there was maybe one instance it's not entirely clear from the record but most of it got up in her lap and it immediately got down problem the factors that are not being can and victims some of who are courtrooms and they have their own disability issues concerns and those they have a right as well in this instance the trial judge made a specific factual finding that he was satisfied that there is in fact a disability that was covered by the a b a and that the dog is in fact a service dog the question then became how do we make a reasonable accommodation for that which the court did by all the efforts that he put into making sure that that occurred there the service dog evidence does not there is nothing in the manuals that are used for or interpreted in this or the illinois case well or the a b a that says that all of the disability information even those two questions that the co is permitted to ask nothing says number one that they're required to ask that and number two nothing says that they can't be done in camera which is done daily in court rooms in order to protect privacy you said the judge got a written a written recommendation from the court administrator for the disability administrator and that was that disability no way we can start opening a victim's records full blown into into decisions of whether they get to come in with their animal invest the e a v prohibits that when it is in fact a service dog you are not intended to ask all kinds of questions and invade their privacy and open it up and put it in public records and give it over to the defendant so the fact that the judge was able to see that in camera and if so is one hundred percent appropriate the fact is in this particular record we actually do see a ton of information about her p t s d but certainly we wouldn't require that in any case in every case because the a b a actually protects the victim and the witness provided that the defendant gets that fair trial which isn't fast he did the two questions that counsel is talking about those are questions that may be asked there is nothing that requires that the manuals that we use which we have the one that was put out by the attorney general's office of illinois there are some federal ones that can be used but and favor of either side you must focus your attention on the witnesses and the service dog shall not be considered in any way in your deliberations or your verdict the dog never was admitted as evidence it was they were it was me you know hidden from the jury obviously we are aware that it came up one time the jury was also aware that they were supposed to ignore that to the extent that the defense leading that somehow because there was a service dog the jury would have inferred that it was the defendant who caused that there is absolutely nothing in the record that would support that in fact jurors were told sick speculates there was no evidence about her p t s be presented to the jury so they didn't hear about that we know about it because it's in the records but the jury certainly didn't hear that it's perfectly appropriate that they use these the cylinder facilitators within the courthouse to make those initial assessments do some weeding out make the recommendations to the court but if then the court that makes the  finding which was done in this case and it is the court that in fact the side how do we reasonably accommodate this in order to protect both the defendant and the witness and that is absolutely what was done in this case  instructed not to i fully believe that i thought i would be dead is ambiguous it's i she thought she was going to continue to live out her life having to suffer with this and nobody was going to help or that c easily taken that way and it's certainly not prejudicial in the context of the entire trial in terms of the officer saying how he ended up at her residence that was really not offered for the truth of what was asserted it was offered for the course of the investigation why did the officers suddenly show up at her house and that is perfectly appropriate also because of the fen questions the defendant wanted to focus on her being on the no flight site she was on it without result commission and all kinds of things trying to make her look  bad or improper or parents looking bad and so they brought out all the information about that night notes light and her behavior there that did in fact invite how does that lead to police suddenly showing up after the war and the police showed up at her door because they received some information that she may be suicidal again that only went to the force of the investigation in any  certain points in the brief they asked for an acquittal and i don't see any evidence or support or case law that would support acquittal vs a new trial which of course the state maintains they're not of a witness when the nexus i think it's between the disability in the service animal is an apparent and that's what counsel has argued in this case this wasn't done here when you're considering the higher context of the investigation  can you tell me the relevance of this statement r l had been i mind making suicidal comments with the relevance of that is why the police were concern hurt either side is suffering that that's accurate i'm having a serious issue with this idea that anyone is going to credibly argue that when this gate opens with i thought i'd be dead before it came out that that is not a reference to suicide i find it just absurd to suggest that that's a reference to god i hope that this abuse comes out before i die at the age of ninety nine dollars i think it's ridiculous i think the two are juxtaposed together and i guess i give you an opportunity to try to tell me st why i am wrong but assuming i'm right why it's not prejudice well  statement is for its power and because you don't start your opening statement with some casual reference that that's irrelevant it's relevant because it reminds the jury of the suicide and then that's relevant because it buttresses the fact that she suicidal because the uncles of abusing her that's what the state did i asked and i think to say that oh it could have meant something else well maybe but in the context of everything it was very intentional in my mind and just assuming it was intentional explain to me why it was not so prejudicial that the problem is unfair you're not obviously well agreed to disagree and that i don't really that was not s so what we have is truth is the same thing so the only thing that we would have is well we have a fact that she said she thought she would be said i personally believe that it's also you know it's an effort to show how it impacts well this was the victim that she was hoping she was she was thinking this was how do you want to look at it but either way i think that the evidence the jury did in fact find for the state i didn't quit they obviously thought through the evidence they acquitted of the one that incidence which was maybe the graduation party to the other incident there with not only her own testimony about what had occurred but there was corroborating factors through other witnesses not to say they saw  sight frighted the access to her at the bus stop which is odd behavior where the just the defendant was showing up every morning to you alone with her at the bus stop and so there is i think that number one it's we also still have to differentiate in ways between can and must so st of all i don't even think there's a must anywhere here can a court do that  i would say that there is definitely within the there's and the manual that we use in illinois to interpret that which is certainly in harmony with the that our goal is to protect the disabled person to the extent that you start you know invasive and we questioning them and acting as though they are not entitled you are actually violating the victim's rights at a certain point the other thing is i think some of these things can be done behind the scenes in camera and the defendant doesn't necessarily have a right to see all of that if i agree with you and that would not be a good idea to for example in this case the co ordinators report or letter to the judge under seal so we could move you in i don't i don't think there would be anything wrong with that i don't think the defendant has a per se right but we actually don't do that if we do let's say we do in a camera do you think that when the judge went through the whole history of our our our p t s d and decided that only certain parts of it were relevant this court would never express the entire volume of the records that the court went through  put before the court actually i have to tell you being a trial judge for eleven years i put any number of in camera reviewed medical records under seal in the file even though i didn't tender them worthy of talk or to review but that's an aside we don't have to discuss that all right i have no further questions i appreciate your answers thank you yes mr i do have a couple of brief questions to follow up on the points that have been raised on the issue again of the suicide information that went to the jury yes there's a long line of cases well established that a police officer they testify about the steps taken in the investigation of how they got involved and but that doctrine sometimes gets misinterpreted and the breath of it gets misinterpreted there is also anatase of the say that while that can be done it should be avoided to bring out the substance of any conversations that i heard out of court and how do you respond to the question of the argument opposing counsel that the victim had already testified that she had told people about the abuse on the line so why couldn't the testimony have been why did you arrive at her house we arrived because of information we had received which would have military against any prejudicial effect of that statement so why couldn't how do you respond the argument was unnecessary for him to get into the suicidal aspects of the certainly had didn't testify as you say as you suggested i don't think that would be error either but i don't think i don't think there was cause in the event either certain aspects but the officer answers the question to the best of his ability it appears i don't i don't think there's any suggestion that the officers are liberally tried to inject that in there because  the question was why did you go to her house and it was we got a report that she was having suicidal thoughts that's why they went to her house let me ask you the question about the argument that ultimately i think in the record in the sentencing hearing it came out in more detail what the disability was that the victim was suffering from and the fact that the dog in question was a bonafide service dog that was apparently for the st time those details came out how do you respond to the defense counsel's argument that that was hearsay it came out in the context of a sensing hearing no right to cross examine or challenge it as opposed to coming out before the trial how do you respond to their argument well my my initial response was that again there's a limited right to explore all the ins and outs of her disability so the fact that it didn't come out in this record doesn't mean it shouldn't come out in every record it's the st thing because the witnesses and the victims do have a right as well to be protected but the you know at the beginning i understand they're saying you  when you look at the a b a and you look at the manual and you look at the regulations you are not supposed to be true into that person privacy more than is needed for the situation and so and in fact you're you're actually prohibiting to the extent that you're going to subject the victims or witnesses to that your are denying them access to the work because you are putting the situation where they're going to withdraw from from bringing themselves forward and that's exactly what you shouldn't do ications and argument it's not that this is going to be delving into all the medical records and psychological records it's really just to see is this a service animal or not and what task it's been trained to perform and it's the state that started this case off with wanting to talk about the t p s the and having the facility and that was not an attempt is embarrassed anyone or to make any private records published this can't be done it could be done in camera or record is made or there can be any numerous protective orders or any other limitation and secondly just the p t s d is not necessarily the main issue there was that but if that sentencing that she has p t s d was brought up throughout the case it's really about the service panel and if it is a certain number one if it's a service animal and what task it's been trained to perform and that is a very not have any further questions of mr gable so at that time at this time this will conclude the arguments here this morning on this case i do wish to cite counsel for their presentations this morning and for the quality of their arguments here this morning the matter will of course be taken under advisement and a written disposition will issue in due course that will conclude the arguments on this matter here this morning