the court now calls one one seven one awake people of the state of all my verses anthony boyce are you ready to  that manner the answer to this question based on the language of the whole event statutes their placement within the criminal code and the enemy purpose underlying those orders and statutes leads to an answer of no the offenses of solicitation conspiracy and attempted are generally recognized as in code offenses because each of the women area to another and more serious principal friends those are not my words that is a direct quote from the committee comments to article eight of the criminal code where the legislature chose to classify the encode offenses including including both offenses or crimes that are stacked in this case there's never been reported decision knowing authorizing the stacking up in code offenses in the matter that was the issue in this case and it's not surprising that there's no precedent for this practice because the legislature did not should be taken by the deliberative process of the legislature and give their signal and their blessing that such a practice to be done not by the fia of this for there to be an answer of solicitation does the was received by the intended recipient there would have been the solicitation yes your but illinois law is pretty clear that in order for the crime of solicitation to take place the letter has to addition did the defendant here not attempt to send a letter to the intended recipient the defendant did intend to send the letter to the recipient and was that not enough that was attempt to do something the question is is not whether such conduct can be described by words whether it's it reaches the the threshold of criminal and whether the legislature intended for the criminal sanctions to reach that that it says it is immaterial under subsection one of the section that the actor failed to communicate with the person it useless to commit a crime but his conduct was designed to effect such communication the illinois legislature left that language out of our solicitation statute and what can be gleaned from that that exclusion well the most direct conclusion that we can reach is that the legislature didn't meant to draw the line of criminal the reach of the criminal  solicitations makes sense in light of the animating purpose underlying the solicitation statutes which is twofold number one preventing the harm that would result from him to induce a successful inducing of a crime so if you solicit someone and to commit murder and the person ultimately gets murder you want to are solicitations so the ultimate crime murder never happens in the first place or becomes less likely and second actually wants to protect inhabitants of the way from the corruptive are corrupting our oppressive influence of solicitations themselves but when the letter doesn't get to the resist when it falls short for one reason or another neither of those purposes  think when we when we try to glean what what the legislature intended by leaving something out of the statute this case this court's decision and people versus fosters instruct where this court determined whether the by to indicate the legislature wanted to abandon the bilateral theory of of conspiracy so in in the absence of some affirmative signal from the legislature we're not going to we're not going to insert into the committee comments sort of static self that the legislature still sought to criminalize this behavior or in that case to authorize a unilateral theory  the committee comments or silence this court has taken a conservative view in constructing the statutes and and waits for the legislature says the legislature needs to give us some indication of what it wants to do before we're going to read the in this case and they left it out we the think the conclusion we would reach here or should we should reach here is that they did not need to criminalize that all of these factors that i've been talking about that this court's decision in that case lends support in wallace the court record recognized the scope of the general and statute is not played merely by looking at it later that you can't just attempt to attempt what's the actus reus of solicitation has been described by the lower courts in the state as an attempt to persuade another to commit a crime and that's a logical deduction you that one crime so an attempted solicitation is an attempt to attempt to persuade another from a crime of these that that recognition by the lower courts in quadrata speak to the analysis would have you heard fact of encouraging inmates to mail a solicitation knowing there's only the commission of an offense if the mailing is not intercepted how would you respond to that well first if it's encouraging the defendant to mail that mail a letter then that has that presupposes that that the letter is that the defendant assumes the letter is not going to get to the intended recipient the first place what happened in this case is is struck we had a letter that was sent by my client intercepted by the prison mail system as you know all prison has no mail is monitored intercepted and then forwarded not was not cut off at the knees here it had the opportunity and took that opportunity to see an actual crime so was the taste of murder would take place it never did and that's what didn't you say earlier that the solicitation occurs when the letter is received by the intended recipient whether the does it mean the intended recipient has to act on that solicitation before there's an offense it me it your honor means that the the intended recipient has to receive the solicitation in the in the respect that the person has to actually read the letter if it's a letter they have to read and understand the letter if the if it's words person you know it's all over the phone apparently the connection can't be cut out  mr payne but for the law enforcement's interception of this communication what else would mr that boyd write rabois have done to conduct the same either way isn't it the conduct is the same and in his case so what this what this decision is all about is whether the legislature wanted through the criminal law to exact where criminal solicitation does not get to its intended recipient a valid punishable offense in illinois is inconceivable that our legislature did not intend to punish a defendant or tempted to mail letters from prison asking someone to kill a man in frame a witness who testified against him ye mere fact that both actions are categorized as in quite offenses simply does not demonstrate and express legislative intent to decriminalize attempted solicitations contrary to the defendant's argument statutes placement within the criminal code cannot be used as a vehicle to read into the statute a restriction or a limitation that the legislature did not express and our legislature clearly did not intend to permit individuals to engage in the type requires that the words of solicitation be successfully communicated for the offense in the validity of this construction the supported by the authority of this court the appellate court and numerous other jurisdictions and treatises is also supported by state's general attempts tattooed is the proper vehicle to prosecute them as attempt solicitations every jurisdiction to address this this question has expressly help us by omitting this language a state legislature expresses it punish and communicate the solicitations it we say in our brief that it should come as no surprise that all the cases that are so factually and legally on point and and i and i think they are they're nearly identical particularly the end of hard cases actually in legal jurisdiction health is held just the opposite that they are attempted solicitations to except the defendants argument would be quire this court to to do perhaps the single most taboo thing and that's to read into a statute a condition or restriction that the legislature did not express when the legislature wants to impose a restriction as this court has said repeatedly it knows how to do so and it's done that on and dozens of occasions  they were prosecuted as attempts of so with with regard to that turning to the general term statute itself that expressed glee in presumptively applies to all criminal offenses there is no ambiguity about that whatsoever read into them any limitation that's not expressed i think the the crux of defendant's argument comes down to the statutes places in the coming from a code that they're both in court offense side fan but importantly goes nowhere in any of those opinions that there result turn on the placement of the solicitations actually within the criminal code of rhode island or california statutes particular wording or its label or even in the case of jones excuse me a case of mccarthy the actual expression of legislative intent in this court has declined to actually use that text the prose it's actually in there as a as a mechanism to change or read into the actual statute itself an expression limitation that's not expressed with regard to the argument that this is an attempt to an attempt in our brief we see that that's a nothing logically impossible there's nothing he invokes this course decisions and lopez and reagan all those cases involved something that was logically impossible incompatible met mental mental states there is nothing fundamentally there's nothing remotely illogical about attempts to command requester encourage but it's not for this court to to do what he's asking would be a fee for it would be very definition what this court has consistently declined to do which is to read into a statute that restriction is not present and it's not express well this is a case of first impression we've never had a situation in illinois where the attempt statute has been applied to a phone what offense to the extent that there are out of court decisions that that authorize the stacking  mexico edition issue wasn't at issue in that case it was whether unsuccessful solicitation can be a solicitation under the new mexico statute the cotton court went on over to dictate the state well in certain cases that might that toward preparatory or with the actions nothing signals the legislators intent to include everything the state says nothing signals the legislative intent to exclude