docket we schedule each for half an hour and still try to hold you to that well the reason we brought you here course is that we want to engage in a dialogue real familiar with the facts of the case real familiar with the law that you've raised and we want to discuss it with you that means that we probably a lot of questions we may not quite make thirty minutes maybe a little longer but we are aware that we do have he says going all morning so if you would get your strongest part and i assume that you'll take some time for a bottle however the behavior that i described does not constitute attempts sexual assault because it was not a substantial step to the force an act of penetration he did not address he did not request the complain to success or to successful completion of the act and what i describe your honor does not constitute a substantial stop it does not constitute dangerous proximity serious criminal acts but they were not steps towards a sexual assault towards the completion of a sexual assault towards penetration they were armed they were violent that expect i mean i think that  or some sexual conduct some clearly identifiable sexual conduct not bait or de minimus but i would say there would have to be undressing there would have to be a clearly communicated desire for sex or there would have to be you know intimate touching none of those things were present and that is why i say no substantial step and certainly you know substantial step understood to mean dangerous proximity to completing the and i know that the city the case relied on by the state hawkins draws a distinction an interesting distinction between steps already taken and steps of remaining to be done and places  focus on the former steps already taken now i would respectfully dispute that approach i think that drawing that distinction it's an artificial and misplaced distinction that illinois talks of a dangerous proximity to success there's no way to really determine and assess whether a person is close to his goal was shot without determining what remains to be done the analogy that popped into my mind sort of a maybe silly one is a person running a marathon he runs a mile that's probably not a substantial step towards completing a marathon it might be a substantial step towards a much d i think in the background there's a public policy rationale a strong and humane one that you the law should give a person contemplating some bad acts that and doing some bad acts the is what he told the police there are certain perhaps or circumstantial evidence but the only direct evidence the intended to have sex with this boy as opposed to maybe doing something else that wasn't true or not is that the only direct evidence that he knew that he once have facts are essentially worse there than here they are the defendant demanded that the client put the complainant on dress here there was no such demand  actually over a motion and women and there was i mean this is the traditional balancing test probative or pressure is it more ten general to show that he wanted to to show that he had destroyed other pictures and maybe missed that one and that he had the spanish and that's why he wanted to take pictures of the boy that stuff it's always the picture was five years that goes to prejudice it was taken consensually so it wasn't a it wasn't evidence of a such crime it was a consensual picture it was five years old so in terms of recency view the remote because it was very remote from from what happened and i guess the most important point is it was really embarrassing i mean no no defined no person would want to have which standing trial for serious crime would want to have a nude picture of hendrix the pursuit of justice has not permitted and must not permit a man to be convicted based on an image created of him in the courthouse based on the idiosyncrasies of his past life and i thought that was really eloquent way of it you know what the picture was terribly embarrassing it was remote it depicted consensual conduct and that should not have been admitted here on a substantial step towards the sexual assault of this child to me specifically what he did say is that specific leak constitutes substantial in your in your opinion combined with his intent the substantial step was when you got in the car looking for a victim he found the boys playing basketball and he offered one hundred dollars to come back to his home to move boxes so substantial step as far as your consent to sexual penetration and that's what the language says yes i him if he had never said i intended to accept with this victim but i took him home for some other purpose what would you have charged him with this is a different question if he had if he had died admitted to the intent then you would have had to look at the other circumstances the fact that he wanted to the boy to take pictures of him that he wanted to that he touched the boys by shoulder in the car to say that he wanted to have a fun time and they got home that his version of a fun time i'm touching his thigh is it's an overt sexual act it is a substantial step actually touching his when they were essential salt when they were in the car on the way to the home before any conversation had taken place prove every single element of the crime you can't be just part if it has three elements you got approval three so we're trying to think i'm trying to figure out what is the substantial step forward sexual penetration that was crime to go to the place contemplated first commission defendant did that here when he offered him one hundred dollars to go home doing reconnaissance on the place contemplated for the commission of the crime defendant took him to his home where he knew they would be alone he took him into the basement  code the case in hawkins is also instructive here in hawkins the defendants went to the victim's home he got in her bed they were both completely clothed he did not touch her he touche tenet here said he wanted to have a fun time we know that his version of a fun time is having naked pictures taken of himself that's how he gets away aus and hopkins there was no confession of intent as there was here so this case is even stronger further and hawkins the victim was able to convince the defendant to leave on his own and that is not what happened here it is lucky that the child escaped in this case he tried to escape the defendant grabbed onto him he pointed a gun at his head and said get in here or i'm going to blow your head off let me let me pick two different directions if the state chooses to charge the defendant with heathfield on the the state have to prove every single element  the defendant when he was talking to detective walsh mentioned the fact that he had hand sexual fantasies and wanted to have sex with the boy there was nothing else that would give because th but the fact that defendant wanted him to paint him a polaroid picture camera said i want you to take pictures of me and then they found naked pictures of him it's clear what kind of pictures defendant wanted the child to take let's be really but your records say is that he this is a panic claim he put it right into the basement given camera and told him he wanted to take some pictures to find it did not state what kind of pictures he wanted him to take so when you just told us that he said he confessed that he wanted the boy to take naked pictures in your brief you said that it's not what he said which is it now i'm saying there were several conversations the defendant had with  the police officers in his signed confession defendant the stated jim states he got the camera so that omar could take pictures of naked james stated that he wants he wanted he tried to show the victim how to work the green polaroid camera so he does it he didn't say whether or not he told the boy to take him naked but he said in his statement that that's why he got that it was him have the does not what he said  correctly agree with that agreed ok let me ask you about this yes so after all this happened the home was searched his girlfriend who's now his wife  ter she you know turned it over she was due to spin the investigation and it was discovered it was a camera with three pictures yes and she test one was of a dog and one of them was  taken for fun what relevance do these pictures have to this there are absolutely relevant to show defendants intent defendants as both psychometrist testified had had testicular cancer or prostate cancer he required more extreme situations to become aroused this was how he became aroused what evidence we have that we have both his statement and his girlfriend statements that they took these pictures for for fun in part as part of their sex play statement at a crime rates the victim's statement that he wanted him to take pictures it crime rates the defendant's statements that he shredded naked photographs of himself because he knew he was afraid the police would be coming based on what the boy told them if he wasn't afraid that the was not doing anything wrong why would he shred these photographs it's evidence of this is that how we look at romans issues was in fact able to to to make his own judgments or if he was these drugs were one of them to do what happened here in any and all that psychological evidence that was was there anything about these pictures more extreme circumstances to arouse him i'm going to  about you don't think it's kind of prejudicial all evidence is is prejudicial this was are overly prejudicial any evidence that tends to show that defendant is guilty is is clearly prejudicial towards in the record that said he would i want you to think naked pictures of me for i mean i think we have to be really precise about the fact that we're talking about here well he said to the boy they were going to have fun could took place in november of two thousand and four five years later what's the probative value of that if it's probably because it shows his intent that he knew he was doing that he knew that it was wrong because he little have to do with this particular crime the at this photo was evidence that he had a few photos that he didn't destroy they found lots of shredded photographs in the trash he admitted to the officer that he shredded naked photographs of have the boy take naked photographs of him it establishes that he was aware of what his behavior was that this wasn't something someone that wasn't aware of the criminality of their behavior as soon as the boy left he tried to cover up his tracks he hid the gun he shredded naked photographs he made a cover story to his girlfriend he said that the boy had possibly stolen something and that's why he was afraid that the police were coming these are all evidence of this also evidence that illinois is a little bit in conflict with the model penal code approach model penal code this does not include what illinois clearly does the concept in attributing substantial set of dangerous proximity to success now in some you know hypothetical model penal code cold world perhaps offering one hundred dollars and to move boxes or enticing into a car is is substantial step but when you consider the concept that illinois considers dangerous proximity to success i would say that there's you're nowhere near that marathon metaphor you have a long way defendants we want to have a fun time the difference is important differences context when hawkins said that he was climbing into bed with the complainant and he had taken off his shoes so we had begun i'm dressing and communicate