offenses right there provisional allows for the initials right and what is the state do in those cases sexual assault victims are entitled to less privacy protection than a minor that is a victim of a domestic battery or an endangerment charges we have here right well to comply with section eighty five we could use to physically go to the parks office the courthouse request access to the document and then parse through it and that they were looking for whereas now you can simply google search from the comfort of your own home and get an instant access to these publicly but they did not comply with the common law requirement so we are asking the court is it that or argument in light of the unique and she's at issue involving minors act and to modify it pertaining to minors because they have interest that's what you're saying zechariah that minor and other identifying and information is sufficient then to comply with the law is it presently exists ye trial and the state moved to amend the name and the court said this is a formal the fact that can be amended you don't have to dismiss the indictment it can be amended and then john said the name is an essential  proceedings from the guilty plea hearing or from child ordering the child transferred and parsing through them to find the victim's identity requires much more i've heard and it's much more difficult than simply getting the charging instrument which is the first documents of state with case indeed with respect to their argument concerning double jeopardy defendants argue that without the victim's name in the charging instrument they would have to cook unquote our their records to find the from public scrutiny tensional invasion of privacy and possible embarrassment or ridicule when the judicial system can protect minors measures should be taken and should be taken when possible miners here affirmed of course the trial court's dismissal of the defendant's charges in defense cases where the state simply refused to amend the charging instrument to include the identification of the alleged victims in these cases despite well established longstanding principles of here is that the this when defendants challenge these charges when they did in these cases pretrial creepily they're under no obligation whatsoever to to to show that they've been prejudiced or impaired  the preparation of their defense rather once it's challenge now it's up to the state to ensure that their charge strickly complies with illinois pleading requirements which he clearly did not it's illinois supreme court rule six sixty c allows for minors cases arising to the juvenile court act the identify by all first name and last initial or in certain circumstances first and last official moreover the legislature has seen fit to extend here has made clear in the record initials are not sufficient if it does happen nothing if not reasonable here hours both defendants either specifically requested that the court order the statement merely include the initials and the other defendant although filing a motion to dismiss at the actual hearing on that motion  conceded initial would be sufficient indeed based on the reading of the record it's clear that used to be the traditional means of charging in cases like these but now for whatever reason it's time to include no identifiers whatsoever now the state says well initials ar sufficient because it's a small town and people will know but i don't know affiliate really that small the town and moreover this isn't going to just the fact joliet this decision will affect all the towns in illinois and we argue this is a role for the legislature the legislature should be the one to extend this this extreme hard line type of protection that just doesn't exist currently a couple i want to make sure i mention a couple of points here the state has made clear in its argument here today that it believes you can simply log on to google and and see the charging is from it's in these cases just log on from home or the will county circuit website and see the language of the charging instrument let's just not the case well county circuit clerk website does not allow not attorneys to log on and view the language of the charging instrument you can look up espinosa case you can look up the service case you'll see they can't find the name of these miners and they're not the initials i think moreover i want to i want to highlight below it was that the state was explicit its new policy is to include no identifiers whatsoever now the state says well we want to include minor in some identifiers but if we look at these charges that your honour's they're not identified identification obviously implies a certain level of specificity that being we know who it is we don't know who it is based on the charging instrument mystic battery household or family member which is household or family member of this family member is it a step daughter or son still go as far as to sarah there were eight kids it could have fit the description so the identifiers do not identify moreover as to the state's arguments about burglary being changed ok so the owner of the property that was burglarized is no longer required but that's because it didn't go to the nature  element of the offense what matters a burglary is the property taken where it was taken from not who owned the property here offenses against persons the nature of elements of these offenses obviously go right to the nature over bill jones frankly arar's jones doesn't heal the issue in this case jones deals with the misidentification of an alleged victim of armed robbery in that case the state charged the defendant with the armed robbery of charles monday the reiterate the longstanding principle but i did it is essential but simply found if it's misidentified you can correct that it's not contradictory it's not an unsound decision there's no reason to overrule jones and moreover jones was not the side in the dark jones understood based on the language of the opinion liberalized pleading policies in illinois the fact that the information in the charging instrument there's other means to disseminate that information to defendant the charging instrument was not the exclusive means but this court understood we argue it should still understand that it's the essential means it reiterated in that case this principle is not merely a technical rule this is a substantial requirement that safeguards to fit its constitutional right aside the well established rule that the finnish don't have to show prejudice when they challenge the sufficiency of a charge this early and in exchange for that torture i mean the state's right they merely delayed what we hope to be inevitable identification of the alleged victim in these cases because ultimately the victim has to be identified defendants have a constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause the offense was gone to the statutory right the common law the common law rule so ultimately the victim have to identify but it's not beyond the realm of possibility or  it might not because we can look at people the walker illinois supreme court case nine hundred fifty five where the state charged the defendant with a burglary saying they stole the property of and you know you're right well and the reason that the defendant one of that case is because the state failed to get into the record the name of the alleged victims so how did this court know that the state  they the right victims because they look to the charging instrument the charging instrument is there for a reason it needs to remain there this court understands that it understood it jones nothing's changed since jones the again you know the state has argued well the internet but again that doesn't make it it's not easily accessible you can access the charge against most of these cases from the internet if you're not an attorney and finally finally your honour's what happens if the state win here ultimately the state is is apparently not you know proposing submitting a proposal to the rules committee here it's not lobbying the legislature it's a unique an interesting  where the state is not complying with court orders not complying with well established principles of law all in an attempt to change the law in hopes that this court will do it for them so should the state when the decision comes out what's stopping the state from a month later saying well elderly victims need to be protected to state has an interest in that so let's not identify them at all if that's the case then why are we identifying victims of armed robbery it's not exactly the most well where we allow initials and appeals regarding the juvenile court act if that's not your issue really today it would not necessarily if we agree with your position here mouth us having a look at identity as a requirement under one eleven three at a time so although the instrument that statute is not expressed be eliminate the common law carmen it doesn't say the victim's name is not required