that the defendant has obstructed it knowing the state failed to prove both of these out it's to put it simply while the state is trying to make this case one about ignoring an officer that alone is not enough instead the statement shows both that an authorized act was impeded and that the defendant ignore in this case that the defendant ignored the officer's commands specifically to impede th do so to impede the officer's investigation there's no crime is that your position that is my position yes that you know she she testifies is she doesn't want somebody to come to the grounds so because that's what she wants which is different than what the officer was reckless board open because she disagrees with him and doesn't believe is investigation doesn't make any difference because her own mental process was i don't want that interfering with what the op says and in this case if she makes clear that she hears him but she is trying to keep this other woman out and i think it's important to note that she wanted to talk so she wan believed that she was in danger she testified that as she believed ms martin was drunk she knew that ms martin's brother had beaten up her son i believe that week for you know they've already had this verbal dispute outside the house wasn't any evidence of them or situation where they posted danger now i think she was afraid that they could pose a danger to her but you're correct there hadn't been any sort of the battery or anything like that outside the house before she goes in but she doesn't unlocks the door and basically hides until the officer arrives like she is clearly concerned about what's going on outside so you know and i think that it's important to know as well as i know th case and i'd like to note as well that the state spends a fair amount of time emphasizing the door being closed on the officers which mr lee has denied a trial but because the state amended the complaint before trial the state obstruction charge is based on ignoring commands not on closing the door sam so the issue really is whether she's ignoring the commands and whether that impedes the officers investigation and whether even if it does she does so with the intent of impeding that that stick i'd like to point out as well the evidence is not overwhelming in way it's insufficient that she actually  and responding to a call and there are three people somehow intertwined my understanding of his testimony is he wanted to keep his eye on the woman and the man who was in it was in a taxi and we visited have a woman with me he just wanted to be able to see that in the testimony his testimony i think is they were twenty five to thirty feet away from the door and at that point were not showing any interest in entering the home zechariah that's correct although mr leah disagreed with the assessment of whether belief whatever might happen and he wants for his safety he wants to know what those other two people are doing and wants to have a conversation with your client and she's so fixated on closing the door that he can't proceed with his investigation he can't hear her side of the story and can't find out with her so committed a barrier they committed a battery what the circumstances were why is it that even p p can't complete what he needs to know about who lives where whose residence it is whose address it is what her side of the story here is he can't do any of that because of her interjection and her desire to keep well first i'd like to emphasize that there's no allegation of a battery here the officer testifies a trial that he knows it to be only a verbal disagreement he's very clear he's expressed that there was no allegation of a battery so how about by then by about by the two people  brett however it's not her house right son's house correct book but i think everything is with the emphasis on the safety concerns none of that is related to him instantly and i think need the door open for safety i need the door open so i can see them and so that we can talk about this i think he could do that very simply without him but he just keeps repeating this order to open the door and i think this goes really to her mental state even if the safety issue isn't heating he doesn't tell her that he needs it open for the investigation so she's got no reason to believe that the door needs to be opened for him which you know necessarily there will be some act on this part on that score didn't sort of inferring what her mental state was all of the facts and circumstances of this encounter relevant so she would you know because he doesn't tell her i mean you know i'm going to rescue you don't open the door and he hasn't told her why the door needs to be open that's all relevant to determine whether she is knowingly trying to but you know she's explained at trial that she's keeping the door closed because her son told her not to let miss martin then i think all of those who the officer knows there's martin's and dress on her driver's license that correct i believe he knows what if this was a car door this is an officer i make a traffic stop well i said i open the door because i want to see the hand she but when the officer arrives he's treating her basically as if she's the one causing the problem it's different than a traffic stop where presumably there is some reason to believe the driver might hear pose a threat to the officer save some reason to believe that something is happening its own reward at that home and perhaps on that porch or perhaps in the front door and the people that she's complaining about with in his eyes you know address right and the homeowners mother is the person call i don't think the dispatcher said that i don't think we know the point is he has a right to this call with what is a verbal dispute he's talked to one of the parties he hasn't talked to the other party yet and yet here she said arrested within a minute and a half of him getting in the house that i think this happened so quickly it's not unreasonable for her to you know she's just trying to keep ms martin now she does not yes she wants to speak to the  she there's nothing in her testimony or from the facts of this case that would suggest that she could possibly think that keeping the door closed to try to close the door would make it so that the officer could not talk to her so even if you find that the investigation was impeded in some way the evidence of her mental state is suppose is wholly insufficient she doesn't know why the door needs to be open she doesn't she's been given no sort of warning given how quickly this all happens she would have no reason to believe that she's about to get arrested for obstructing just because she's trying to close the door he's arrested for interfering with a surprise test and the appellate court said that's not knowing obstruction because there's no evidence that he knows that the test is still on you have to infer that he knew getting out of the car would interrupt the investigation on to knowing that the investigation is still going on and that's basically what you have to infer here that she knew that refusing to open the door would delay the investigation and that the investigation required the door to be earth couple of men to leave the sport would have to make to find that she acted knowing that she was consciously aware that her conduct was practically certain to prevent him from performing his investigation and i'd like to point out briefly just on the impeding and then i'll wrap up here that the reason the state investigation gets delayed if at all it is perhaps a minute or two is because the officer decides to turn it into this dispute and i'm not you know i understand he is he's in a difficult situation so i'm not trying to suggest that he did this  the investigation gets delayed because he begins to earth and that's somewhat similar to what happens in cotland ski where the officer stops the sobriety test to argue with the defendant to send him back to the car in the court noted that it was his decision to delay the investigation so if there's a delay here which is one to two minutes that's hardly under illinois cases from second to the fifth to the part it's a few minutes away it's not in and eat it and even if it were repeating there's no evidence that she was consciously aware that her conduct would make it so that he could not take his before you run out of  the is the consequence while that may be an authorized that is not the authorize act that was charged in the complaint and because section thirty one dash one doesn't particular eyes the defense the offense or describe what acts constitute the crime the complaint has to allege the act that sets forth the structure that has to set forth what the op rights act and so it doesn't matter  was that the defendant obstructed runner quite close in the door in his hand at the state did later amended to ignoring his verbal commands a locker that distinction is one about a difference as his verbal commands were to not close the door thus for closing the door is part and parcel of the same transaction she was charged with then counsel does make an argument in her reply brief about this being a new theory that we really are re but the state disagrees as this issue just argued below as well as independence on three now the first issue defendant argues is that the state failed proved defendant hindered or impeded the broader investigation charged and argued by the state the defense the fent refused to follow numerous lawful orders she continuously attempted to close the door and violation of those orders and she ended up some body slamming the door on the writer of sand which created a literal obstacle  and impeded his investigation our supreme court has interpreted the word obstruct as encompassing physical contact that literally creates an obstacle what else was can impede it as justice connecting hairs previously referenced the control of the scene and showing the safety of all individuals present and restoring order these are all lawful acts that roger was authorized to perform well plus and counsel says staff wasn't specifically sorry how do you respond well once an officers called to the scene he's there to investigate and i would say under investigate would if subset of controlling the scene ensuring the safety or story order i think that's all requirements of this investigative procedure that is a lawful act that he was authorized to perform the defendant also argues that contrary to common sense the door being open would actually make it easier for people to come in and i think this is just somewhat misunderstanding a police procedure and also obviously wants to be aware of where all the individuals who are present on scene are once have on them and he does not want to not be able to see people because that is when they could either run away from the scene acquire a weapon or cause other types of misconduct that would hinder his investigation another argument to make the film makes is that she wanted to talk to roger and that this would have helped his investigation as argued in our brief all she had to do is talk to him she could've lawfully complied with his orders and she would have been able to talk to him but instead she was so worried on closing the door and ignoring his verbal commands that she was unable to talk to him she this case closing a door on an officer stand is literally creating a physical obstacle that's obstructing him further if you look at no evidence the light most favorable to the state there's no evidence that martin was attempting to get into the house so defendant's arguments that she was closing the door and him block her martin from coming in is false when viewing it and this under the standard officer her to have a suspended license i believe that was the fact and he followed her home she then drove into the garage and went to her house the husband of that woman then came out and told the officer that he was the one driving and he asked officer would you like to come inside and look for to prove that she wasn't home the officer said no he mailed her a citation for suspended driving on a suspended license as well as obstructing a police officer both her and her husband now on appeal the wife's obstruction charge was affirmed while the husband's charge was dismissed and this case the finet is likely likening herself to the husband whereas if you compare the facts she's more like the obstruction charge affirmed on appeal another argument defendant makes is the knowledge requirement she argues the state failed to prove defendant knowingly obstructed his investigation in other words the state had to prove defendant was consciously aware that her conduct was practically certain to prevent roderick from performing his duties now defendant part is there was no evidence whatsoever on her mental state whatever to financing the overlooks that circumstantial is often utilized to show knowledge indeed by its very nature knowledge ordinarily is proved by circumstantial evidence here as the fennec not it was herself that called the police but she was aware why the police officers were coming to the scene to investigate r arrived and began investigating by talking to martin and then attempt to do is continuing his investigation by talking to defendant defendant stated she saw him coming up to the front door it can be presumed circumstantially that she knew why he was coming to talk to or to investigate while they were talking shit tempted to close the door and he told her four five times to leave the door open and she continually did not comply with these commands and eventually attempted to close the door by using her body to try to slam the door that mark was the tempting to get in so therefore the only way the only reason she was closing the door was because she was not complying and was obstructing this this evidence showed her conscious awareness and that she was aware that conduct was practically certain to prevent rider from timmy's an investigation again how was he supposed to investigate if the complaining witness the one called him in the first place was not complying with his orders for support again i will not reiterate the facts of that case but in that case the phonetics relying on the proposition that the defendant cannot act knowingly if she is unaware of what the police were doing whereas here i just argued she was aware of what the police were doing because she's the one who called them to the scene she was aware he was talking to one witness that he was coming to talk to her so killen see is distinguishable because the senate was aware that there was an investigation that was on  she also argues that she had innocent intentions over this thing the state does distinguish those cases she cited for support and their brief and will not go into them here however just looking at it from an objective standpoint the state fails to see how discuss the second issue which is the prostitute or misconduct the senate has forfeited these issues neither prong of playing arrow applies as no air heard and if you look at the statements the first was that the state misstated evidence regarding the prosecutor's allegation that defendant herself acknowledged that people were accusing her of battery and c the state that roger was not investing in investigating a battery of her there was evidence on the record that defendant cites her own brief on page five second full paragraph third sentence the woman pushed each other after which defendant got back inside the house unlocked it at the end of that same paragraph at that point martin's brother began yelling that and it hit martin page seven by sentence on that page defendant admitted that holland martin had accused her of battery so there's plenty of evidence for the prosecutor to make the statement that state vouching for credibility of a witness it was the state simply opining on the defense's theory that it found that theory outrageous had nothing to do with the veracity of a witness and this is completely legal for a prosecutor to do it's not this conduct the first statement is again the prosecutor opining on common inferences and facts that were found in the record he states that doesn't sound like she's trying to get inside to me this was not improper as  supreme court has stated it's perfectly permissible for a prosecutor to state an opinion which is based on the record or on a legitimate inference driver from nowhere heard regarding any of these statements as a result there was no ineffect just a few brief points running a little behind the issue here is about ignoring the officers commands that was what was argued to the jury and i appreciate the state's agreement that it improperly relied on the initial complaint but what was argued to the jury is what is ignoring commands not the slamming the door with respect to the state's comment that warrants testified that she never want to obstruct the  that's the way the question was posed to her by defense counsel did you ever want to obstruct him so that she says no does not necessarily mean that she's agreeing that he was actually obstr with respect to counsel's argument that restoring order in control of the scene as part of the investigation that was not argue to the jury either instead it was he's there to get information nothing about restoring the scene or anything like that  with respect to the brief delay issue i agree that's not the only factor for this court to consider but it is one of the factors that this court can consider to see in deciding whether there was an actual material impediment to the investigation it is incorrect to say that there was no evidence that ms martin was coming as mr lee a testified that she was trying to with respect to the state's distinction of state says well here there's evidence that she was aware of what the police were doing and she was aware that they wanted to talk to her and she wanted to talk to that she wanted to further the investigation she is not aware that the investigation wires the door lindsay actually is relevant to this case and i counsel here asked how can the officer investigative she won't talk to him she wanted to but she also wanted that door closed and obviously would it have been better for her to comply immediately certainly but i think it bears noting that she did comply with his order to her to turn off the alarm when he came in the house she testified that he came in the panic alarm was going he asked her to turn it off and she did can argue about that she turned it off there's no evidence that she tried to interfere in any way when he's talking to ms martin she simply believes his talking to ms martin privately it's going to come to her that she will have her chance to give her side of the story when he comes to her and for the reasons we discussed briefly already i think baskerville in the baskerville case is different from this case because there it's unquestionably a traffic stop that she's trying to avoid here it's the complaining witness calling the police to get this resolved and she wants to help their investigation should have trying to avoid it and then i'll just briefly touch on that second issue and note that we agreed that none of the comments were objected to however as argued in my brief competing narratives of what happened at this house so just as in seventy this would be first from planar if this court has no further questions ask the supporters thank you