first james lewis is conviction for creating a public official stems from lewis allegedly delivering a communication that would have placed officer welch in reasonable apprehension about the harm and the state failed to prove that element of the crime that welch would have suffered a reasonable apprehension welch new or down that that communication was false because in the interview room investigator cade for some reason lied to louis and said that his name was officer welch and lewis gave no indication that he believed that was a lie or that he knew a lie and meanwhile while it was monitoring the video of the interview so should have known that was the case and then you know that was handcuffed in a police station surrounded by police officers his friend was contingent on his handcuffs being removed state at the very beginning of the state says that well any reasonable juror would have concluded that the mental state applies to every element of the of the crime as lawyers in illinois we know there's a statute that says that judges  jurors are laypeople they don't know that and it it again appellate court justices have struggled in certain cases to apply that statute to other statutes i think it's totally unrealistic to expect a jury to reach the c story it was the idea instruction but the idea instruction was drafted before aloneness which made it clear that due process requires that when the state criminalizes threats some call the mental state has to apply to the to the facts the conversation happened just a feeling narrative but when when the parent gets into the facts of what their prior assertions contain that is hearsay and it's either improper bolstering or  i'm not i'm not entirely sure i mean don't recall is not important if you look at the statute all the state had to prove for a child this age was contact with any part of her body for the purpose of sexual gratification contact with the part of her body for sexual gratification correct how was it argued or tried the defense counsel and the state all argued that the state proved contact with her well i mean the jury would be able to evaluate the statements on their own and you know the state i think is telling the state didn't call the mother didn't that didn't want to one fifteen deshawn here not it not just for katie statements but also for the mom the dad and maybe police officers state's very confident that's case six case in which judge fate be heard evidence from a six year old girl about crimes committed when she was five years old where in defendant lured kids from across the street to his house with puppies and then engaged in what we refer to in illinois to say i don't know and i don't have it in front of me and i'm bears to say that because this was a case that was prepared by a staff attorney in our office and due to a conflict date i'm here and i've spent the last week or so trying to prepare and so it to occasionally having done some trial work myself i know that sometimes you call into if you fall into the rabbit hole of proving more than you have to and none of that matters here however you  e and this goes to the point i was going to make about one fifteen dash ten i think what is happening is we're talking in circles about what the law requires and what is hearsay and what is  prior state and i think one of the things that i love about the law and in particular i'm above the law in illinois is that in fact juries are instructed at every trial about using common sense and the thing that i didn't hear in the opening presentation this morning was anything about the context in the context here is that this is a six year old witness testifying about what happened when she was five years old  i would be the first amendment reviewing this at first blush i thought some of the questions asked by the prosecutor were probably a little bit odd or oddly framed to elicit a response but again it goes back to context here's what she testified to that she indicated to her mother and father that her bottom her now if you go to one fifteen dash ten a one this is what it says testimony by the victim of an out of court statement made by the victim that he or she complained of such an act to another this is not the act the act is the touching of the anus or the improper touching under the statute what she relayed to her parents isn't the same it's the same row it's why the parents did what they did the irony here is if they had called the police officer to testify about why the police officer engaged in an investigation and went to this person's house and said none of this would be an issue at all when in fact they actually call the person the six year old that had the actual knowledge of it and the way that she framed it might have been improper as we generally see if a thirty five year old woman was testifying this is a six year old if if they would have called the police officer testified well why did you go to the house where the parents are called and they indicated that when they were giving their daughter a bath her bottom her ok and then what did you do i didn't really do anything until they arrived because i told him to come down to the station and then and here's the other state statement they complain about that the three of them the child the mother and father then went to the police station to tell them about what the daughter had told them if the police officer testified to that we wouldn't be here because we do that in almost every case to establish a foundation essentially what they did here was they asked this six year old girl to explain how did we get here sweetheart that's the sort of comfort level that the legislature in visions in a trial like this and this is precisely why they come up with statutes like the certain hearsay  statements provision in one fifteen so we're using that's what i was just about to get there are very this goes back to and if you look at page twenty four of the state's brief this is precisely precisely what you point out in boeing one fifteen dash ten is designed for detailed corroborative evidence of a child's complaint about an incident to another that's not what was presented here if you change the facts in this case i would concede yeah that's probably a problem we should have won fifteen deshpande hearing and that those facts would be if she said well i told my dad at the time that he put his finger on my anus and took photographs and so on and so forth that's not what they're complaining about here they're complaining about the fact that she's a status thing the foundation for why the parents did what they did and why the police did what they did it's not even hearsay it's right it's not even the type of hearsay or problem that's invision by the legislature or the supreme court rules or the supreme court and it's in its rules it just is not the type of hearsay that we have to deal with but in any of that even if this court were to say this is a complicated set of facts we shouldn't be establishing the law on one fifteen deshpande based on the testimony of a six year old not that it matters anyway because had they had it one fifty dashed in there all of this evidence would have come in and probably more the defendant quite frankly probably benefited from the fact that there wasn't one fifteen  have one they would have brought it all in the judge would have heard it all the judge said ok here are the specific parameters of what you can present based on one fifteen dash ten which are these specific acts that were relate to another as this were well knows the whole point of one fifteen dash ten is that so that when you have kids between the ages of five eight ten years old and they go tell someone a counselor police officer their mother and father out the details of the criminal sexual abuse or assault then that evidence can come in so long as they're available for cross examination that's the whole point of one fifteen i understand would it be perfect to go back in time and have a one fifteen dash hearing and provide this jury with a limiting instruction on on what that that you can't use better bottom heard or if they have objected appropriately at the time they say that the state's attorney or sister he could have rephrased the question and said don't tell me what you told your dad what did you feel and she would set my bottom hurt what's the difference we're talking about again this is all context i don't believe she testified right yes or no what did she say to me because i'm sort of stuck in the same box i don't want to make a misrepresentation but for now what i've reviewed she did not testify too much but my point is if they had objected on this specific point about the wording the assistant state's attorney would have done what i would do as a prosecutor  say judge i would drop it all regret is what did you feel when you were taking a bath that night do you remember and she would have testified to the same thing so this is much ado about nothing quite frankly she testifies that her bottom her and that's why her parents did what they did then they all went down to the police station but they would have you believe that this is the only evidence that was for it as presented it wasn't it's the tot circumstances there's evidence presented that this is how it's got to the house he's got puppies she has to use the bathroom take the walk to the bathroom he tells her to take her pants down she's taking photographs i just don't know the answer that that's right i'm trying to wonder about i hope everybody gets their point of the objection here should have been something like if they want to get here say fine it's their private to object the way they want you but frankly what  really getting to here is an area he says he's objecting that this girl as in the example that justice titan gave earlier about the suspect in the armed robbery is saying here's why we did what we did but but instead of the father or the police present presenting that narrative she's presenting it and she's there if they want to cross examine her and say did your butt really hurt they can do that but they didn't do that because no defense attorney in their right mind is going to cross examine a six year old girl like that for fear that she's going to say yeah i did right and i understand it's the state's burden to prove but they did given the t circumstances and you can't say one thing that strikes me is that you can't say that this jury was under reasonable it's my recollection that that they acquitted him out of a charge in this case so it's not as if this jury just looked at th and was unbridled without instruction and threw the book at this guy in terms of convictions because they just thought he was a bad guy or they felt some sympathy for the child that just wasn't the case and you know issues related to one fifteen dash ten where he's complaining that the framing of the state's attorney's question was improper as it would elicit these responses but as to the statements proper under one fifteen yes then the statements in other words that would have been the subject of one fifteen dash then that's it and that's my point i go back to subsection want a want the complaint of such an act to another this is the letter what this lawyer secures contemplating here is her articulating to someone a parent a police officer someone from the cac the cack representative that hears what he did and she pointed out to me on this teddy bear that this is where she was her that's what they're contemplating and there she testifies that she can't do that unless until you have one fifteen action hearing and then a subsequent limiting instruction none of that was required here i just think it would have been a better practice to ferret all this out yeah maybe that show so seriously can only be relevant if your train show that occurred isn't respect i disagree your honor ok why it is relevant because it shows why the parents did what they did why they got to where they got in the investigation why they went to the police station that there's more than one reason it would be relevant why is it there because otherwise the defendant is going to stand up there and even that after sentencing the defendant is up there by their own admission say i have witnesses this never happened i never did this that's his defense here i didn't do this so that's his defense if the other way it's totally inexplicable otherwise why the police show up at his house after he was a good samaritan showing little kids in the neighborhood puppies and just because there's some collateral benefit to the state namely that the jury uses common sense and puts together the fact that oh yeah well yes and i believe they did because in illinois we allow common sense and reasonable inference by jury we don't have to have a medical doctor come in i mean this is a case where this is a reasonable rational theory that got it based on the totality of circumstances should this is a state's attorney have done a better job and been more prepared probably more prepared than i was today answer question sure but i'm not troubled by this because of it again this is the ensuing on the head of the pen and you're looking at one fifteen dash time but they're the one making the technical arguments and this is precisely why i find it so compelling that there was no objection made to the state's attorney's question because if there was this is just the kind of thing that you could have gotten into and that's what forfeiture is all about and in closing i think i would just be remiss based only on that who was five at the time and the election incident and i just want our you know the state acts like one fifteen to ten its sole purpose is to allow the state to bring in extra evidence to make it easier to prosecute ch cases and that's not true as dual purposes one is to allow the state to bring in those high status because it's tough to prosecute child sex cases but the other is to ensure the reliability of those statements they come in and their one fifty question should she never testifies at trial that she said she told someone out of court the tank is the one who did that there she did not do that but again the state made their whole theory that she that's why they took her to the hospital the next day there was no objection to that question so she was still complaining about a part of her hurting the next day correct t v never testified today when she was correct w