supervision ordered to pay a fine on this class a misdemeanor this offense to the ticket and the conviction arose out of an accident a occurring in rural knox county around dusk on  tried to swerve to avoid an accident couldn't and ran into his vehicle fortunately there was no no one was injured there was property damage the police were call the all girl friend got a ticket or not surprisingly there is not sufficient evidence there was not sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a conviction for reckless driving the state's theory in the case both in the trial for now on appeal is that the defendant deliberately break in order to cause an accident so that the police would come and the old girlfriend would be carried that's the state's theory the theory clearly was not supported by farmers testimo was so close that all she could focus on was his tail lights she would at least was trying to avoid an accident there by keeping our eye on his tail lights he said and she saw that he put on the brakes she tried to swerve to avoid an accident and could what she did a head was that she didn't see any obstruction in front of the fence pickup truck that might have caused him to well of course ask a laboring the obvious because she was hailing and the tailgating is that you can't see what's in front of that vehicle in front of you whether it be an obstruction in the road a piece of debris in the road an animal or heaven forbid a child running out into the road there was only one other state witness at trial now was the deputy sheriff from my notts county who investigated the accident he responded to the scene of the vehicles off to the side he took information from the parties and did figure out that it was as he put in order to cause the accident so that was the policeman's theory that the defendant while riding around with his new girlfriend would have and having the old girlfriend tailgating him would deliberately so in order to cause an accident so that he and the new girlfriend could wait for the police and or an ambulance to arrive all the while listening to the old girlfriend yelling screaming at well you know what i call that that's a kill that's what that is how is he going to move this is not a good way to spend the time with his new girlfriend i causing this accident and waiting for the police to come nevertheless that is the officers fear well what's the basis for that theory was it something that the defendant said the defendant didn't see near her about the accident he didn't say anything to the officer about that you know carla it got me exactly what she deserved that so when still he didn't say anything what he said was that he had seen a deer in the road what about the passenger that there was a passenger in the for the new girlfriend under the state's theory her life was in danger or her safety was in danger when the defendant deliberately slammed on the brakes so that the old girlfriend could run into him what did she have to say that she say that that the defendant had done it deliberately now did she say that the defendant had said something old watch this you know what she told the officer is that there had been a deer in the road there was something in the row was it something that carl the old girlfriend had said that she talked about that head she offered her opinion that the defendant had done it on purpose no did she say that he had done something like that before in a time when they were dating know if she reported anything to the officer about something the defendant had said while they were waiting for the officer to iraq you know all she said was that she was tailgating and she couldn't avoid hitting the to cause an accident this maybe was on this maybe it was a feeling that the officer hey maybe it was similar to something that he had seen in the pants maybe he is seen a bunch of teenagers doing something like this  or anything of he didn't witness the x and there was nothing told him by the defendant the new girlfriend or the old girlfriend that would have supported his theory now the defense challenge the theory  suggested to the trial judge that there was just speculation and only speculation on the part of the officer the trial court then said that he believed that the defendant needed to testify in order to offer reason of the defendant  was this was or there was rainy weather i think what he was driving at is there was something in the road his first thought he reported it was that it was a deer his passenger thought it was a deer upon reflection he thought maybe it was a smaller de could have been there i only his point was that there was an animal in the road and i think that was the important are about what was going on to perhaps conclude that there was a domestic situation and i agree that the officer could have concluded rightly concluded that this was a domestic situation that's why the old girlfriend was pale me but i don't know that there it can be anything beyond that because there was a domestic situation that the defendant would deliberately slam on his brakes in order to cause an accident because again he was in danger car is old girlfriend and her car he was in danger in himself and his pickup truck and he was in danger in the passenger in his own car all for the sake of giving carlo a ticket i think it's simply not  reasonable inference under the circumstances you're on what we believe that the trial judge should have done here is simply accepted the testimony of the defendant it was unimpeached it was on contradicted by anything th carlat said it was not improbable because it after all it had to do with that scene in the or at dusk in march in rural illinois there is nothing improbable at all about that in addition the venice testimony was corroborated by the pretrial statement of the new girlfriend the passenger in the vehicle when she spoke to the police and that particular statement of hers came in as part of the state all she could say she did say she was following very closely so we know that she was there her view was going to be obstructed just because of what she admitted to be the the small distance between her and the she also specifically said that her rib tension was directed to his tailor she also said that it was raining and under all those circumstances i suggest that there is nothing at all in probably nothing at all persuasive about the fact that she didn't see a structure she didn't and her firm was obstruction she didn't see any obstruction in the road ahead of the defendant that would have cost and rick i think that that's simply not enough there is not enough there that she didn't see anything of course she didn't see him she was tailgating she wasn't in a position to see anything and the officers simply heading assumption head conclusion that it's simply it's improbable in another itself and it's not supported by any other evidence in the case for that reason we asked that the judge's decision be reversed on appeal we've also pointed out and we recognize the court's reluctance  to overturn or the fact finders decision we've pointed out in the second issue in the brief some of the specific problems there were problematic acts there of the court's ruling he was looking for the defendant testify when he really shouldn't he place under supervision before the phrase found guilty and sentenced to probation or conditional discharge or periodic in prison and it puts placed under supervision before that phrase before the congo t phrase even though a defendant placed under s judgment and final judgment then would be appealable at that time with the court supervision there's no sentence but the revocation of it would impose the sentence in the sentence would be appealable at that time as it would be a final judgment so just which is the point at makes the decision to treat the cases the sentences and convictions different from the case of court supervision where there might not be a sentence because the rules operates out of place on their supervision in the second phrase in the rule where the rule states that probation or conditional discharge could be could appeal both the finding of guilt and the conditional sentence well that phrase the conditions of supervision is again placed before the finding of guilt or conditions of sentence or both both can only refer to two things those two things have to be the finding of guilt or conditions of sentence or sentences imposed the other phrases been placed before it and also the both those in there before the stiction defendant's been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt there is much more than just a traffic accident here we know that defendant was arguing with his ex girlfriend carla dorothy about his relationship with another woman defendant gets mistrust with the other deer maybe it was a coyote maybe it was some other animal there's a huge size difference between the coyote and deer also the trial judge found that dorothy would have seen a deer had there been one it's true then tailgating him directly in front of them she couldn't see what's directly in front of the line of the car but if it's a deer running across the road by being so close to him she's going to have the same similar lines of vision and trial judge found there she would have seen a deer had there been one she didn't see it here you do you through after explains that the entry of judgment is deferred so there is no conviction and so what's your position if he doesn't hear this if he didn't pay the the disposition of supervision cannot be appealed we certainly know that every reviewing court in his state as without a second thought consider the supervision cases that this this court considers tra aces and considers motions to suppress this court has reached the sufficiency of the evidence and supervision of cases of this court is found that a village doesn't have the the worry to prosecute a traffic violation resulting in supervision conditions there are sets to probation the same conditional discharge the same periodic prison the same even if the person is just sentenced to a fine the person will be able to come in here and argue to the court as i have this morning that to convey that the finding of guilt should not sustain the defendant would also be able to argue that there was a basic effect with the process i believe she was found guilty the state h by looking after the rule admittedly this rule is off even under the state's own reasoning this is out the rule is awkward because it refers to a person being able to appeal from the judgment and may seek review of the conditions of supervision strictly speaking there is no judgement in a case involving supervision because the judgment is the finding of guilt and the sentence and is the counsel pointed out language itself or that state is ignoring and i'm sorry to interrupt this but to me it's not difficult at all if you understand the meaning or right and and clearly one of the a condition of supervision as i understand it was and will fine it is still a fine and clearly you would have been able to appeal that for under rule six so for be referring to supervision even if this case had been a but we believe it is should be resolved that simply awful there is a right to appeal here we believe is just a simple in terms of what a conclusion should be by the score and i'll return to that point just briefly is there for you then he would be out from under that the problem is that there are collateral consequences involved with the supervision now if he completed that he can't come back in the states suggest that if he had violated he would be a violated the terms of supervision then he'd be able to appeal the finding of guilt obviously by that time it's far too late he can donate on a revocation appeal challenge the underlying fact have finding we know that from probation cases and the courts not going to be able to challenge the finding out and in fairness to the process this order supervision is only six months or so he might attend the notice of appeal and we would have to rush to render our judgment before the i think it would have to be credited because it's not if there is not just between a difference between a small deer and a coyote in the rain and i've seen both i and i'm familiar with both all too familiar with the deer and not for that matter the coyote is well in the rain at some sort of speed where a certain amount of attention is going to be directed to the person who's calle gating me from behind that it is not improbable and was not contradicted by anything that harl and it was a significantly corroborated by what a passenger had said to the stocks there and that is that there was something in the road i don't know that you can look at a defendant's testimony in isolation and just put it to one side because if you put it to one side what you have you have the officers assumption on the basis of nothing that was say nothing that he had personally observed all you have is his assumption that this was a classic  great checking and there is not most unbelievable thing that i find in this case is the fact that somebody would deliberately slam on the brakes while riding around in his pickup truck with his new girlfriend having the old girlfriend tailgating him would deliberately  evidence other evidence to support the proposition that they have done this strange thing we have knows that supporting evidence in this case and that's