child under the age of sixteen into a motor vehicle without the consent of her parents for other than an awful purpose but what was the some awful purpose this criminal intent i had a trial sam filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the statute was vague as applied to him and because he did not know what the i'm awful purpose was this motion was tonight he then filed a motion for a bill of particulars asking the court to force the state to tell them what the tell him what the a muffled purpose was to that he could prepare his defense this motion was also tonight at trial sam tried to cross examine the police officer about what was found during the search of the van but he was thwarted in this attempt by the quit sustaining the state's objections on relevancy grounds then the jury was instructed that the state didn't even have to prove and i'm awful purpose they could simply presume that scene was found guilty of child abduction without ever knowing what i'm awful purpose he was alleged to have what criminal intent he supposedly had and despite th sentencing the trial court made a finding that the offense was sexually motivated and sam now has to register as a sex offender all of this without any evidence in this record that there was an unlawful intent that there was a criminal the state was not allowed to rest its entire case however on this presumption there has to be a rational connection between the proven fact in the presumed fact there has to be a substantial insurance that it's more likely than not that the prove in fact leads to that this is all about the mens rea and that the state can that there has to be cooperate in evidence in order for this promise of presumption to not violate his rights to due process and there is no evidence all and turned right and he was parked there he had no way of knowing where she would turn she could turn right anywhere in between because there was a park there walking ninety fifth street from national so were she turns  her the north side of that road as she was where she was he would have a nice place there's nowhere else for her to turn he would have no idea that she would walk straight or that she wouldn't turn left or that she would stop in a shop along the way or that her mother picked her up you know ten feet from where she turns the corner she passes his band the windows rolled down he says hey baby girl you need a ride she ignores them he says are you on your way home from school do you need a ride at that moment she sees her mom and she says no i see my mom and she heads off to a man he drives away there is no criminal intent at all under these facts there and the jury the state in never suggested presumption is that anybody that's following young people are not good people so the burden is almost on the defense attorney to prove that there is no when you're trying to get a kid to go in your car do you do you need do you need a gun do you need a condom or you know you said you didn't that you need something like that you need something more than a  played a right of maintains a surveillance if you will who motions are towards his vehicle after she's heard he declined any invitation to go near him or to take a ride we have a guy also who the night and the police sufficiently it's made it more likely than not and all those things can be responded to he gets a call from his work that he needs to approach the police station which he voluntarily does three holes right but i'm he could have been in another part  which is unusual he was not where he was supposed to be he had finished out of his deliveries for that's a good as having as wants to have him inside the prieto place that the problem that i'm having here is that you say in your brief that there's no corroborating evidence and i you know i think that's a pretty bold thing to say and light of the circumstances hand that my colleague just mentioned here an oral argument if you stood before us and had a case where when this girl mother you know happened to come by and this man stayed there and talk to her and said i was just making sure that she was ok and you know we didn't have a situation where he speeds away we didn't have a situation where work he drove away we didn't have a situation where he didn't give yourself a dry shave to get rid of his goatee we didn't have a situation where he went in and deny that there's any kind of encounter wrong with this girl you might have a much better argument and the absence of men is rare but the crowd reading evidence that was i think delineate pretty fairly by my colleague here does seem to suggest requisite mance rayder two responses ryan he yes he should just go t but he knows something he knows he's in trouble he knows he screwed up he's in trouble with his job he's now going to the police station he talked to a girl he shouldn that he made a mistake in today's day and age you shouldn't do that but we don't put you prison for that and we have talked to her because for this precise reason because people assume that you are doing it for some unlawful purpose even when there is no such evidence direct evidence lead to suggesting an intent he screamed out he when he shaved his goatee he was nervous he was scared and but that doesn't prove that he had a criminal intent  the state didn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt so the state we don't know what that the jury found that to be that this is my my original question what was wrong with the instruction it doesn't appear that the these videos of these girls he would talk about masturbating he wanted to have sex with them i mean things that provided the defendants with the knowledge of what the unlawful purpose was that he was alleged to have conducted and in this case mr has had nothing he had no idea he was the entire criminal code and he tried on cross examination to show that there was no i'm on purpose and he wasn't allowed to do that as all of these issues go together he desperately wanted to know what it was that they thought he had done not you that case he used his car to block her and he said get in my car in this case you have nothing more than an offer of a bad home on there we're going all on the wee bit again the language of the state you hear saying it's  reasonable that the language of the statutes the presumption the premise of your assumption but you haven't really told is why because in all the other cases there's more there's more than this there's nothing here that aware of what was going on in the little girl ran to her mother's car that this man left that he changed his appearance and that he denied having any such encounter when he talked to the police after thrice being contacted by his employer you say that's no corroborating evidence i don't know that you know that's necessarily true no he voluntarily went to the police station he gave them his location of right there he was he was nervous he was scared  final argument at sentencing the trial quickly made a finding that this was sexually motivated and there's certainly no evidence in the record and there has to be one or more facts of the underlying  kelly on behalf of the people of the state of illinois sorry the facts and circumstances in this case clearly indicate that the defendant had a criminal intent in mind when he initiated contact with the fourteen year old girl who was leaving for the day outside of simmons middle school this is a man who was supposed to be somewhere else but instead was loitering in a van outside of the school he targeted this particular fourteen year old girl who was separated from the majority of the students who were in the parking lot waiting for their parents he smiled at her he beat his horn he tried to get her attention and his purpose was to isolate her to get her into the van away from the street away from the other individuals she clearly indicated to him that she did not want to have contact with him she pulled up her the hoodie on her jacket she walked faster she tried to get away from him and his response he pulled his van over to a place where he knew she would have to pass by him she he waited for her he rolled his window down he leaned out of the passenger side window and he spoke to her and when he spoke to her that's the most telling indication of what his intent was he didn't say something which would be appropriate to say to a fourteen year old girl like are you lost do you need help would you like to use my cell phone and said what he said to her was hey baby girl do you want to ride it's inappropriate is overly familiar and it's arguably sexual in its nature again she attempted to ignore him she attempted to get away and instead he asked her again do you need a ride and thankfully she saw her mother she fled and what did he do he away he doesn't attempt to explain himself he doesn't attempt to assuage this mother who testifies that she observed this and that it seems strange to her and that she was concerned about what was going on now  really in and i have difficulty with this it's almost as though there's be one more thing like you've got the cases you cited in the show substantially well i think that when you're looking at the premise of inference portion of it you're looking at for other than lawful conduct so for that purpose of it there's no need to show that the unlawful contact was sexual in nature it can be any kind of unlawful conduct so for instance kidnapping certainly his attempt to get her to get into the van  it's a great indication that it could be an attempt to try to kidnap her so in terms of what we have while it may not be as clear cut as in say the woodrum case where he makes a detailed confession there's clearly an indication that his intent with this girl was for other than a lawful conduct and that's corroborated by the fact that he takes the civic actions after the initial contact with j h not only to conceal his identity by shaving his goatee but he makes a big thing statements telling you know his during the telephone conversation with his boss i saw this cute girl and i whistled at her but when he speaks to both the police and the assistant state's attorney he denies any contact whatsoever in our brief we cited for you a case which talks about how under those those circumstances when you're speaking with the police and they're asking you about a situation like that and an innocent person with an innocent explanation would reasonably be expected to provide that information this should bend to that should we be troubled though by the objections that were made to trying to find out what was in the van to see if there was anything in the van that would be consistent with the criminal groups why why were why were the trial court's rulings appropriate well i would respond to that three ways first of all the fact that the defendant had a gun did not have a gun or a weapon was established during the direct testimony of the victim and whether defendant had condoms  or duct tape or pornography which were the other three questions he wanted to ask that doesn't prove or disprove the fact that's in question here and that is what makes testimony rel also beyond the school was there heard here and that would be my second answer to you which is that the purpose of cross examination is to discredit or to impeach testimony that was given on to act and during the direct examination all that was asked of officer williams was his conversation with j h his initial conversation with her and his mother his conversation with the defendant his obtaining the video graphic evidence from the lucky burrito and the lineup identification that was done there was no questions about the search of the van the search of the van wasn't even brought up until cross examination when defendant brought it up my third response you would be because defendant had the opportunity to elicit that same information when he called officer williams he recalled officer willing to ask him about other things and he didn't bother to ask him about the questions that weren't allowed on cross examination which he certainly could have done so or if there are no other questions for those reasons and for those in the people's read we've asked you to affirm the defendant's conviction thank you basically in regard to the cross examination and it was not established that there was no gun or weapon she said she didn't see anything that doesn't mean that there wasn't anything in the van secondly that it the test for  that go against what we were calling at least potentially corroborating evidence that leaving the scene shaved the goatee you know the issue with the lucky burrito and  certainly could have and that's why they asked the question so you know i mean certainly if there was something found in the van that would have been relevant to the issue of m i five ten for the state as it wasn't there wasn't anything found in the van that cross examination was thwarts it also points out that you know he could have been trying to kidnap her the state's attorney also says that this is clearly sexually motivated and this is the problem here that it could have been anything because there is no direct evidence there's no crabbing evidence showing a criminal intent a specific communal intent there's no evidence maybe because the mom show but we're going to send somebody to pr