cannabis where the scene bag will i write leave the officers testimony at the motion hearing was that one gun was located immediately next to the drugs and another gun was recovered by a separate police officer about ten feet away on the stairs compulsory joiner means that different offenses then adds occur in the same act must be charged together ok but let's let's keep that apart from the speed track so compulsory jointer means that then they have to be brought within the speedy trial attorney and and your and what authority are you really relying on the best friend on the the statute and then the supreme court case was found to statute does the the cases have developed through the years i believe in the seventy's with the first time that we were seeing the fence object to charges being brought after a speedy trial would have run had they been brought initially you know here here's the predicament that i now it seems to me that if double jeopardy a federal and constitutional right cannot apply to on charged offenses i find it a little difficult to understand why case speedy trial provision would apply on charge defenses and if a defendant wants to protect himself by virtue of the hundred  sixty day ter he does sell by demanding trial on the charge defense and going to trial on that charge defense as soon as possible and once he does a compulsory jointer provision bars any later charged offenses that could have been that should have been charged with that charge offense but that bar isn't triggered until there's a resolution that charge that i would agree with that but that's not what you said you said that if and if if offenses are in charge that should have been charged with one hundred  murder victims were not killed by single act they had to have been killed by separate acts because one one could not have killed four people i mean  true i would agree with that the issue there was a fundamental fairness question and that's how compulsory jointer jurisprudence sold compulsory jointer was was prompted by that case that's why do we have essentially venue shopping and repeat prosecutions of basically ex in the same transaction until the state got the sentence that they wanted for the defendant the other issues were trial by ambush and i think that's really where the speedy trial provisions came into play where  if the state added significantly higher class charges on the eve trial and then the defense and have adequate time to prepare is defense that's why our supreme court made it clear that they were going to lake the speedy trial provision to compulsory jointer the issue in this case though is so much easier than the cases that that gave rise to that the issue here really all we have to talk about is what is meant by the same act in our court so when you say sa act are you referring to an act by the defend yes expiry of the defendant where the essential does that mean that the defendant had to put the marijuana in that vestibule to referring to the possession of cannabis and the possession of guns so what possession in that sense is a legal term it isn't a physical act by the defendant because he doesn't really he doesn't really actually possess it literally he simply possesses it under the law well our supreme court as defined it as it's an element of the effects so where the essential and underlying different elements of proof those are required to join so here we have two very different offenses neither of which is dependent upon the other there is but but of course the defendant argues that if you're looking at possession as being that he possess both the cannabis and the hand but taking that argument to its logical conclusion which there's no real basis in the law for saying that his  and simultaneous possession is is one act taking that to its conclusion then possession of anything we can possess things at our homes right now we can possess things that are exactly on our person as you mention but then we take that same act  to accept their argument for today that doesn't really make any sense it's much easier here because the guy on offense you can't you can be charged with a gun offense for possessing cannabis and vice versa so there are really two separate acts even though there's that invasion and there was a criminal sexual assault and veterans probably later in the defense said no that have been altogether right as i say you know they did the home there was the criminal sexual assault and the court said no because the fact that multiple offenses may arise from  but related acts in the course of a single incident is irrelevant that's what we have here we have multiple offenses from the single incident defendant selling our products but he's got a gun he's got drugs and those are two very different statutes  what about what about michael williams the only held court case where it lay down the rule where new and additional charges arise from the same facts not the same act the same facts that's very different it's started being applied to williams is limited to discretionary thunder where they arise from the same facts in the state had knowledge that's right and that was really a continuances related case again not really a compulsory jointer case so again it was going to end in the supreme court distinguished williams in which case that was i want to say  conclude the question here is what is meant by the same act and that quickly and johnson definitions are very guiding and those have been filed by our supreme court for nearly forty years now we need to look at the essential and underlying criminal act and the elements  purposes of the statute no reason need be given if two offenses do arise from the same act and the people have the best reasons in the world for bringing it after the speedy trial set you just told you so can't bring it so the reasons really irrelevant are offenses arise out of the same act that those offenses must be charged together the style of talks about prosecution right it's must be same prosecution something like that right but the compulsory life right right and so did the prosecution in this case and it has not ended right and so why would there be a violation of the compulsory jointer statute ye new charges are added before that single prosecution comes to an end because the compulsory joinder statute and the speedy trial act often work together and as the status already conceded as they did at trial yes there are several cases which well i have read several cases and i'm asking the question because i'm not sure well again i would say that he quickly line of cases from illinois is what is happening quickly did quickly well here here's the easier question and really maybe the question why it's still a question is there a case identical to this case there are cases that are very similar to this case for example people the highest and there was a single search of the same area that revealed pornographic videotapes that featured one minor and there were also they also discovered pornographic still photographs that feature different it was also a former jeopardy case that when they when the individual is found to have been placed in jeopardy in another county they could go forward even ask the new offenses because those new offenses should really acts as a bar when the initial prosecution comes to an end which makes sense then high it is simply an example of that because the former prosecution came to an end when the other case was disposed of and he was placed in jeopardy so you can't had charges after that but here the former prosecutor are the only prosecutor the first the initial prosecution has not come to an so why should why should new charges well let me ask you this mistakes happen why shouldn't the state declare a mistake happened something fell through the cracks and we didn't file the the additional charges although we meant to until one hundred  sixty eight days later or two hundred twelve days later feel what it is but why should one why should the rule be so harsh the rule isn't that harsh your honor this is an adversarial system and both we know there there were four different acts under this this ricci case would be allowed to go forward today which is exactly why this court should be very wary of considering same the simultaneous continuous uninterrupted singular possession here as different acts the situation that prompted the compulsory joinder statute in the first place could take place today because as you noted there was one murder followed by another followed by another all by another foll other two companions there were three all all total right there were decided you know what i'm going to put this gun here with the cannabis just in case he needs it but that person put that gun there without any knowledge on the on the part of the defendant so why why should why should why should that make any difference well i guess in that case then there would be a question of whether he defending it constructively possessed something that he  knowledge of but again the facts haven't really been fleshed out that far and is not a reason to allow the them the facts to be fleshed out during the course of a trial as opposed to ending the charges no your hon r like s s because they were initiated with one hundred sixty days as a gated you know double jeopardy double jeopardy doesn't apply to uncharged offenses and yet you wanted to apply you w with the legislature now they put it another why would the legislature want to give greater protection to individuals facing uncharged offenses than the constitution gives to these  and well it's not it's not really that much of a greater protection as i said the state has known about the existence of the guns all along they could have charged it and they didn't you know they knew the rules they didn't play by that maybe it was just a mistake but it doesn't mean that they get to bring charges whenever they want to whatever charges they want whenever they want this to be the statute has already construed very narrowly same facts as and quickly and hyatt and baker and others are generally simultaneous they are the same time continuous there uninterrupted that's the situation we have here different acts by contrast are independent overt they occur in a series one criminal act followed by another what what standard should be well the standard that's been set forth in the in the quickly line of cases where i mean it i believe so it's going to depend on whatever kind of facts each case presents in this case it's construction you think do you think there's a need for you know maybe a different interpretation to what it means if if it depends on the circumstances and really nobody really knows what that means until the facts are fully fleshed out well again you are it just depends on is it's a does the factual situation presented is it more like ten where there's as a story or davis where there's a series of criminal acts that are independent and overt or whether it's a simultaneous continuous single kind of act that results in multiple offenses you know i understand the concept of making comparisons because that's necessary when you're dealing with a standard that really defines definitions such as reasonable doubt well when you're talking about statutory interpretation you know the whole goal of some of the statutes is to place citizens on notice of what is required under  wall and it seems to me that that weighs in favor of giving clear unambiguous and definite definition to what it means regarding s we're on to the status on notice to again this there's no there's no surprise here mr hunter exercised his rights he demanded trial at the earliest at the earliest time and of course there's no dispute that had he gone to trial and these charges later on right but if to the extent that he doesn't go to trial he leaves himself open why should meet why should we say he leaves himself open to having these new charges placed against him because he didn't go to trial in time because prosecution and then the going to prosecute the second murder third murder fourth murder in sequence and sequentially but sir much more prosecutions we don't even have one prosecution completed yet suchi was much more severe but but that's what i'm trying to express to you is that that situation because of the way the case law has developed sense then though that would be allowed to happen again to make the statute any more narrow would completely depart from the legislature scenting creating the statute in the first place there's no need to indulge the state by to chime to say that even though this happened at the same time it was the same search with the same possession the same search of the same area on the same day even in that situation if we're going to call that different acts then there's there's no there's nothing left of the compulsory jointer statute and as for the elements the the state has mentioned that because there are different elements they should be construed as different acts but the statute doesn't say anything about different elements the statute just says multiple offenses so presumably the legislature invision that there would be occasions when multiple offenses have a different elements i think it's a little unfair to to the rape has no necessary connection with the burglary as a seven when we stop to consider that the burglary was complete before the defendants laid a hand on the victim that even the johnson case was so let's say the let's let's stop right here let's say the police had stopped one of the individuals that bought the marijuana from the defendant and charged the defendant with delivery of cannabis and then discovered that the other cannabis was there he actually saw a person visit you know deliver to deliver in gauging a hand to hand transaction versus he's constructs liberally constructively assessing various items of contraband the fact that he he engaged entirely misplaced is this court pointed out in the case of people versus throughout we actually written by justice mcbride in two thousand and eight manning was superseded by the amendment to the controlled substances act that case tell a very narrow issue of whether could charge multiple possessions of different narcotics separately hyun baker mistakenly expanded on that saying that implicit in there is the conclusion that simultaneous possessions can only be charged together as one and that's not what manning stood for and that's not what's recognized as the body more in this court isn't bound by by that will which no longer exists what's really important here which was talked about during closing coun argument is the legislative intent after manning what the legislature do they amended that act to allow for multiple charges to be brought for drugs the same thing happened with the on the lawful use of a weapon statute now that if a defendant has multiple guns he can have multiple charges of unlawful use of a weapon they chose the word act for mandatory jointer over and up and they expressed they said because that was going to be more narrow they gave the examples of where those situations might arise and they said  it would be required were several persons are affected by one at what they envisioned by that was say a person sets off a bomb and many victims are hurt and reading the bomb was one act so charging the injuries for the victim  very narrow the legislature intended a very narrow reading and opposing counsel is incorrect to say that asking us to read it merely would be inappropriate because that's exactly what the legislature intended and justice garcia your hypothetical about giving them to one person and then concealing them somewhere else so that he couldn't be charged if it wasn't discovered until later that absolutely wasn't intended by our legislature just just to be clear i think if you charge him with delivery you be possession simultaneous possession that's that's not the same act it may be the same transaction but our supreme court said same act does not mean the same transaction they're very distinct and just briefly to address that we're not asking to bring whatever charges whenever we why we're just asking that this court read the statute narrowly the way the legislature intended it and the way that our supreme court has in force that i'm with a very much case to be taken under