{ "id": 3621474, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. TROY DAVISON, Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Davison", "decision_date": "2009-04-02", "docket_number": "No. 106219", "first_page": "30", "last_page": "45", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "233 Ill. 2d 30" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "378 Ill. App. 3d 1010", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4274655 ], "weight": 10, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1016" }, { "page": "1016" }, { "page": "1016" }, { "page": "1017" }, { "page": "1017" }, { "page": "1017" }, { "page": "1017" }, { "page": "1017" }, { "page": "1021-22", "parenthetical": "Myerscough, J., specially concurring in part and dissenting in part" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/378/1010-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Ill. App. 2d 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2819968 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/91/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 Ill. 2d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8450807 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "179" }, { "page": "179" }, { "page": "179" }, { "page": "179" }, { "page": "179" }, { "page": "179" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/214/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5597145 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "15-16" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/146/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "443 U.S. 307", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6182418 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319" }, { "page": "573" }, { "page": "2789" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/443/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 Ill. 2d 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3138930 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/106/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 Ill. 2d 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2444253 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280" }, { "page": "279" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/212/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 Ill. App. 3d 1015", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4264805 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/365/1015-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 989, "char_count": 27003, "ocr_confidence": 0.82, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.599210018184695e-07, "percentile": 0.8193329031924255 }, "sha256": "1df75bd87cc31217a0c81bc7cae061d7f57ef75f1f9281c9f2f93b4084b2f55a", "simhash": "1:5f177740e2452c77", "word_count": 4359 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:56:19.732373+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. TROY DAVISON, Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE THOMAS\ndelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.\nChief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Kilbride, Garman, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.\nOPINION\nDefendant, Troy Davison, was arrested while transporting a 30-pound cylinder containing anhydrous ammonia, a key ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The State charged him with possession of a deadly substance (720 ILCS 5/20.5 \u2014 6(a) (West 2004)), and a jury in the circuit court of Clark County found him guilty of that offense. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A majority of the appellate court agreed with defendant and reversed his conviction. 378 Ill. App. 3d 1010. The State now appeals to this court. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the appellate court\u2019s decision.\nBACKGROUND\nSection 20.5 \u2014 6(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 makes it a Class 1 felony to \u201cpossess [ ], manufacture [ ] or transport[ ] any poisonous gas, deadly biological or chemical contaminant or agent, or radioactive substance *** with the intent to use such gas, biological or chemical contaminant or agent, or radioactive substance to commit a felony.\u201d 720 ILCS 5/20.5 \u2014 6(a) (West 2004). Here, the State\u2019s information alleged that defendant \u201cknowingly possessed a poisonous gas, anhydrous ammonia, with the intent to commit a felony, being the manufacture of methamphetamine.\u201d For purposes of this appeal, no one disputes that the State sufficiently proved that defendant possessed anhydrous ammonia, or that he did so with the intent to use it in the manufacturing of methamphetamine. The sole point of contention is whether the State proved that defendant possessed a \u201cpoisonous gas.\u201d Accordingly, we will set forth only the facts germane to that question.\nThe State\u2019s first witness was Hunter David, a deputy patrolman with the Clark County sheriff\u2019s office. Deputy David testified that, on the evening of December 23, 2003, he issued a citation to defendant for driving with a suspended license. After issuing the citation, Deputy David conducted an inventory search of defendant\u2019s pickup truck, during which he discovered a 30-pound cylinder labeled \u201cPropane Flammable.\u201d However, based upon the distinct odor emanating from the cylinder, the modified valve that had been affixed to the cylinder, and the bluish-green discoloration of the modified valve, Deputy David knew immediately that the cylinder contained anhydrous ammonia, not propane. Deputy David then explained that he had received specialized training in the investigation, processing, and dismantling of methamphetamine labs, including a 40-hour course at the Drug Enforcement Agency\u2019s (DEA\u2019s) academy in Quantico, Virginia. The DEA course included instruction on the hazards and handling of anhydrous ammonia. Based upon this training, Deputy David was able to testify that anhydrous ammonia is a \u201cdeadly substance\u201d that can \u201cblind you very easily\u201d if it enters the eyes and can \u201cswell your throat enough that you would suffocate\u201d if inhaled in sufficient quantity. Because of this, police officers are trained to wear a Tyvex chemical suit, a respirator, boots, and rubber gloves before handling or coming in contact with anhydrous ammonia. On cross-examination, Deputy David acknowledged that he was not wearing protective gear when he discovered and inspected the modified propane tank in the bed of defendant\u2019s pickup truck. He explained, however, that this was both because he \u201cdidn\u2019t realize [he] was going to come across the tank\u201d and because \u201cbeing outside, not in a closed environment, there was no threat *** that I was going to be doused or splashed with anhydrous ammonia.\u201d\nThe State\u2019s next witness was Richard Shutter, also a deputy with the Clark County sheriff\u2019s office. Deputy Shutter was the second officer to respond to the location of defendant\u2019s pickup truck on the evening of December 23. Once there, Deputy Shutter \u201cslightly cracked\u201d the valve on the modified propane tank to release a small amount of the gas contained within it. Based upon the odor of the gas, Deputy Shutter knew immediately that the tank contained anhydrous ammonia. Like Deputy David, Deputy Shutter testified that he had received specialized training in matters relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Based upon this training, as well as his personal involvement in numerous arrests and seizures arising from the manufacture of methamphetamine, Deputy Shutter was familiar with anhydrous ammonia and knew that it is a \u201ctoxic chemical that can be fatal and extremely harmful to your lungs if ingested.\u201d On cross-examination, Deputy Shutter acknowledged that he did not wear any protective gear when he cracked the valve on the modified propane tank, explaining that he \u201cfelt [he] could stay upwind of it and remain relatively safe.\u201d\nThe State next called Jerry Parsley, the sheriff of Clark County. Sheriff Parsley began by explaining that he had been trained in both the handling of anhydrous ammonia and the processing of methamphetamine labs. This training occurred in the private sector as well as at the DEA academy in Quantico. Based upon this training, Sheriff Parsley was able to testify that the inhalation of anhydrous ammonia \u201cwill burn the linings of your lungs,\u201d \u201ccan cause death,\u201d and \u201ccould be fatal very quick.\u201d In addition, Sheriff Parsley testified that he handled the disposal of the modified propane tank found in the bed of defendant\u2019s pickup truck. According to Sheriff Parsley, after confirming that the tank contained anhydrous ammonia, he transported the tank to the Clark County Sportsman\u2019s Club, which is located in a remote part of the county and far from any residences. Once there, Sheriff Parsley put on rubber gloves, a firefighter\u2019s coat, and an air-purifying respirator to protect him from exposure to the anhydrous ammonia. He then placed the tank in a field and shot it several times with a gun from a distance of at least 20 yards, releasing the anhydrous ammonia into the atmosphere. After waiting 30 minutes, Sheriff Parsley approached the tank and confirmed that it was empty. He then transported the tank to the sheriffs office garage, where it was secured. Sheriff Parsley explained that he shot the tank both because this is the safest method of releasing the anhydrous ammonia and because, on prior occasions, the DEA had refused to handle or transport such tanks as long as they contained anhydrous ammonia.\nThe State next called Robert Kruse, an Illinois state trooper who specializes in motor carrier safety and hazardous materials transportation. Trooper Kruse explained that both state and federal shipping regulations classify anhydrous ammonia as a Hazard Zone D substance, which means that \u201cthere is a lethal dosage to fifty percent or more of a test group, usually rats, at [concentrations of] three thousand to five thousand per million.\u201d As far as exposure to humans is concerned, Trooper Kruse explained that most people can start to smell anhydrous ammonia at around 20 parts per million and that, once the concentration reaches 500 parts per million:\n\u201c[Y]our throat will shut down, you won\u2019t be able to breathe. You will probably collapse, and you won\u2019t be able to *** self rescue. You won\u2019t be able to walk away from the spill. So once you get over five hundred, you\u2019re probably going to be in great danger.\u201d\nAccording to Trooper Kruse, whenever a Hazard Zone D substance such as anhydrous ammonia is shipped domestically, state and federal regulations require the vessel containing that substance to bear a label stating \u201cInhalation Hazard,\u201d which indicates that the substance being transported could cause \u201ceither great serious bodily harm or death\u201d if inhaled. When shipped internationally, the vessel must also bear a skull and crossbones image and an additional label stating \u201cPoisonous Gas.\u201d\nThe State\u2019s final witness was Troy Wesley, an agent with the Southeastern Illinois Drug Task Force. Agent Wesley testified about prior encounters he had had with defendant, as well as about the process of manufacturing methamphetamine. Unlike the previous witnesses, Agent Wesley offered no testimony concerning the nature or hazards of anhydrous ammonia.\nThe State then rested its case, and defendant moved for a directed verdict. The trial court denied that motion, and defendant immediately rested his case as well. The jury found defendant guilty of possessing a deadly substance, and the trial court later sentenced him to 26 years in prison.\nDefendant appealed, arguing that the State had failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because anhydrous ammonia is not a \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d for purposes of section 20.5 \u2014 6. A majority of the appellate court agreed and reversed defendant\u2019s conviction. The majority\u2019s analysis began by noting that section 20.5 \u2014 6 does not define the term \u201cpoisonous gas.\u201d The majority therefore consulted Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary to ascertain the phrase\u2019s meaning. According to Webster\u2019s, something is \u201cpoisonous\u201d if it \u201cis poison\u201d or \u201chas the qualities or effects of poison.\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 1751 (1993). \u201cPoison,\u201d in turn, is defined as \u201ca substance (as a drug) that in suitable quantities has properties harmful or fatal to an organism when it is brought into contact with or absorbed by the organism.\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 1751 (1993). The majority then noted that Webster\u2019s also contains a definition for the phrase \u201cpoison gas,\u201d which is \u201ca poisonous gas or a liquid or solid giving off poisonous vapors designed (as in chemical warfare) to kill, injure, or disable by inhalation or contact.\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 1751 (1993). Based upon these definitions, the majority concluded that, as used in section 20.5 \u2014 6, the phrase \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d can mean either (1) a gas that \u201cin suitable quantities has properties harmful or fatal to an organism when it is brought into contact with or absorbed by the organism,\u201d or (2) a gas that is \u201cdesigned (as in chemical warfare) to kill, injure, or disable by inhalation or contact.\u201d The majority therefore declared section 20.5 \u2014 6 ambiguous and proceeded to employ a series of aids to statutory construction. 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1016.\nThe majority first invoked the familiar doctrine that, where ambiguous, a penal statute should be construed to afford lenity to the accused. 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1016. Next, the majority applied the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, which provides that a word is known by the company it keeps. Under this rule of construction, the meaning of ambiguous words or phrases in a statute may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words or phrases associated with it. Here, the majority explained, the term \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d appears in conjunction with the terms \u201cdeadly substance\u201d and \u201cdeadly biological or chemical contaminant or agent.\u201d This indicates that the term \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d is intended to mean an \u201cinherently deadly or injurious gas, as opposed to a potentially deadly or injurious gas.\u201d 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1016.\nThe majority then examined the legislative history of section 20.5 \u2014 6. This history reveals that, when section 20.5 \u2014 6 was being voted on in the Senate, its sponsor described it to the chamber as an \u201c \u2018anticrime initiative\u2019 *** aimed at terrorism.\u201d 91st Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, March 25, 1999, at 106 (statements of Senator Dillard). Similarly, during a subsequent proceeding before the House Criminal Law Judiciary Committee, a legislator noted that section 20.5 \u2014 6 was necessary because Illinois had no law criminalizing the possession of \u201cbiological warfare chemicals\u201d or \u201cpoison gas\u201d such as \u201csarin gas.\u201d From these comments, the majority concluded that section 20.5 \u2014 6 was enacted to criminalize the unlawful possession of inherently deadly or injurious substances, such as gases designed, as in chemical warfare, to kill, injure, or disable by inhalation or contact. 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1017.\nFinally, the majority declared that, \u201c \u2018[i]n determining the intention of the General Assembly ***, it is permissible to look to later actions of the legislature.\u2019 \u201d 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1017, quoting Gregory v. County of La-Salle, 91 Ill. App. 2d 290, 297 (1968). Here, the majority looked to the fact that, six years after enacting section 20.5 \u2014 6, the General Assembly enacted section 25 of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, which makes it either a Class 1 or a Class X felony to \u201cpossess, procure, transport, store, or deliver anhydrous ammonia with intent it be used to manufacture methamphetamine.\u201d 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1017, citing 720 ILCS 646/25(a)(l) (West Supp. 2005). According to the majority, the passage of this law, six years after the enactment of section 20.5 \u2014 6, \u201csupports the conclusion that the term \u2018poisonous gas\u2019 in section 20.5 \u2014 6 of the Code was not meant to include anhydrous ammonia.\u201d 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1017.\nBased upon all of these considerations, the majority concluded that, as used in section 20.5 \u2014 6, the phrase \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d refers only to those gases that are designed, as in chemical warfare, to kill, injure, or disable by inhalation or contact. The majority then declared that anhydrous ammonia does not fit within this definition. As a result, the State failed to prove defendant guilty of possessing a deadly substance, and the majority reversed defendant\u2019s conviction. 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1017.\nJustice Myerscough dissented. In her view, the phrase \u201cany poisonous gas,\u201d as used in section 20.5 \u2014 6(a), is not ambiguous and is clearly broad enough to include both gases that have the potential to be harmful or fatal, such as anhydrous ammonia or chlorine, and gases that are designed to be harmful or fatal, such as sarin gas or mustard gas. Accordingly, the majority had no basis for looking beyond the statutory text or employing any aids to construction. 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1021-22 (Myerscough, J., specially concurring in part and dissenting in part).\nWe granted the State\u2019s petition for leave to appeal. 210 Ill. 2d R. 315.\nDISCUSSION\nThe issue we must decide is whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed a \u201cpoisonous gas.\u201d This is a two-part inquiry. First, we must decide what the phrase \u201cany poisonous gas\u201d means. Second, we must decide whether, in light of that definition, the State met its burden of proof.\nWe begin with the statute, and the rules governing our inquiry are familiar. The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature\u2019s intent. People v. Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d 176, 179 (2005). The best indication of legislative intent is the statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning. Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d at 179. When the statute contains undefined terms, it is entirely appropriate to employ a dictionary to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms. People ex rel. Daley v. Datacom Systems Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 1, 15-16 (1991). Where the language is clear and unambiguous, we will apply the statute without resort to further aids of statutory construction. Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d at 179. The construction of a statute is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d at 179.\nSection 20.5 \u2014 6(a) makes it a Class 1 felony to possess, manufacture, or transport any \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d with the intent to use that gas to commit a felony. 720 ILCS 5/20.5 \u2014 6(a) (West 2004). Although section 20.5 \u2014 6(a) does not contain a definition for the phrase \u201cpoisonous gas,\u201d the meaning of that phrase is easily ascertained. As the appellate court correctly noted, Webster\u2019s defines something as \u201cpoisonous\u201d if it \u201cis poison\u201d or \u201chas the qualities or effects of poison.\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 1751 (1993). \u201cPoison,\u201d in turn, is defined as \u201ca substance (as a drug) that in suitable quantities has properties harmful or fatal to an organism when it is brought into contact with or absorbed by the organism.\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 1751 (1993). With this information, we can conclude only that a \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d is a gas that \u201cin suitable quantities has properties harmful or fatal to an organism when it is brought into contact with or absorbed by the organism.\u201d Indeed, this is the only definition that Webster\u2019s permits, and there is nothing the least bit ambiguous about it.\nThe appellate court, however, was convinced that an ambiguity exists because Webster\u2019s also contains a definition for the phrase \u201cpoison gas,\u201d and that definition is far more restrictive than the one identified above. According to Webster\u2019s, \u201cpoison gas\u201d is \u201ca poisonous gas or a liquid or solid giving off poisonous vapors designed (as in chemical warfare) to kill, injure, or disable by inhalation or contact.\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 1751 (1993). Obviously, the class of gases that are specifically designed for chemical warfare is much narrower than the class of gases that in suitable quantities have properties harmful or fatal to an organism. And just as obviously, which of these two definitions is applied to section 20.5 \u2014 6(a) dramatically impacts the scope of that statute\u2019s reach. To put it bluntly, if the statute covers any gas that in suitable quantities has properties harmful or fatal to an organism when it is brought into contact with or absorbed by the organism, then defendant in this case could properly be found guilty of possessing a deadly substance. By contrast, if the statute covers only those gases that are specifically designed for chemical warfare, then defendant in this case could not properly be found guilty of possessing a deadly substance. For this reason, the appellate court concluded that the failure to define the phrase \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d rendered section 20.5 \u2014 6(a) ambiguous and justified the use of further aids to statutory construction.\nThe problem with the appellate court\u2019s approach is that it treats the two definitions identified above as competing definitions of the phrase \u201cpoisonous gas,\u201d when in fact this is not the case. Contrary to the appellate court\u2019s belief, \u201cpoison gas\u201d is not synonymous with \u201cpoisonous gas.\u201d Rather, \u201cpoison gas\u201d is a term of art that describes a narrow and well-defined subset of poisonous gases. Webster\u2019s itself makes this apparent. Again, according to Webster\u2019s, a gas is \u201cpoisonous\u201d if it \u201cin suitable quantities has properties harmful or fatal to an organism when it is brought into contact with or absorbed by the organism.\u201d By contrast, Webster\u2019s defines \u201cpoison gas\u201d as \u201ca poisonous gas *** designed (as in chemical warfare) to kill, injure, or disable by inhalation or contact.\u201d This definition makes quite clear that \u201cpoison gas\u201d is a specific type of \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d\u2014 namely, one that is designed, as in chemical warfare, to kill, injure, or disable by inhalation or contact. See also New Oxford American Dictionary 1311 (2d ed. 2005) (defining \u201cpoison gas\u201d as \u201ca poisonous gas or vapor, used esp. to disable or kill an enemy in warfare\u201d (emphasis added)); Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1111 (1983) (defining \u201cpoison gas\u201d as \u201cany of various toxic gases, esp. those used in chemical warfare to kill or incapacitate on inhalation or contact\u201d (emphasis added)); New Columbia Encyclopedia 2175 (1975) (defining \u201cpoison gas\u201d as \u201cany of various gases sometimes used in warfare or riot control because of their poisonous or corrosive nature\u201d (emphasis added)); World Book Dictionary 1610 (2007) (defining \u201cpoison gas\u201d as \u201ca poisonous gas, such as mustard gas, used esp. as a weapon in warfare\u201d (emphasis added)).\nOnce it is understood that \u201cpoison gas\u201d and \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d are not interchangeable phrases, any possible ambiguity in the statute disappears. Indeed, had the legislature intended to limit section 20.5 \u2014 6(a)\u2019s reach to only those gases designed for use in chemical warfare, it easily could have done so by employing the phrase \u201cpoison gas,\u201d which is a term of art that is commonly understood to mean only those types of gases. It did not do that, however. Instead, it employed the far broader and much more general phrase \u201cpoisonous gas,\u201d which is commonly understood to include not only \u201cpoison gas\u201d but also every gas that in suitable quantities has properties harmful or fatal to an organism. Again, our task is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature\u2019s intent, the best indication of which is the statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning. Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d at 179. Here, the statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning, permits but one conclusion: that section 20.5 \u2014 6(a) applies not just to gases designed to kill or injure, but to any gas that in suitable quantities has properties harmful or fatal to an organism. Consequently, and contrary to the majority\u2019s conclusion below, there is no reason to look beyond that language for external clues to section 20.5 \u2014 6(a)\u2019s meaning. See Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d at 179.\nNow that we know what section 20.5 \u2014 6(a) means, the next question becomes whether the State proved defendant\u2019s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On this question, our standard of review is far more deferential. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, a reviewing court\u2019s inquiry is \u201cwhether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d (Emphasis in original.) Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 573, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985). Under this standard, a reviewing court must allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution. People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004). This standard applies in all criminal cases, regardless of the nature of the evidence. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d at 279.\nHere, defendant was charged with possession of a deadly substance under section 20.5 \u2014 6, which makes it a Class 1 felony to, inter alia, possess any poisonous gas with the intent to use such gas to commit a felony. 720 ILCS 5/20.5 \u2014 6(a) (West 2004). And again, no one disputes that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt both that defendant possessed anhydrous ammonia and that he did so with the intent to use it in the commission of a felony. The only question, then, is whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that anhydrous ammonia is a \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d for purposes of section 20.5\u2014 6(a). Clearly, it did.\nWe now know that, as used in section 20.5 \u2014 6(a), the phrase \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d refers to any gas that in suitable quantities has properties harmful or fatal to an organism when it is brought into contact with or absorbed by the organism. On this point, the State introduced overwhelming evidence from numerous qualified witnesses establishing that anhydrous ammonia is just such a gas. Deputy David testified that anhydrous ammonia is a \u201cdeadly substance\u201d that can \u201cblind you very easily\u201d if it enters the eyes and can \u201cswell your throat enough that you would suffocate\u201d if inhaled in sufficient quantity. Deputy Shutter testified that he was familiar with anhydrous ammonia and knew that it is a \u201ctoxic chemical that can be fatal and extremely harmful to your lungs if ingested.\u201d Sheriff Parsley testified that the inhalation of anhydrous ammonia \u201cwill burn the linings of your lungs,\u201d \u201ccan cause death,\u201d and \u201ccould be fatal very quick.\u201d In addition, Sheriff Parsley testified that, before disposing of the tank found in defendant\u2019s truck, he put on rubber gloves, a firefighter\u2019s coat, and an air-purifying respirator to protect him from exposure to the anhydrous ammonia. Finally, Trooper Kruse testified that most people can start to smell anhydrous ammonia at around 20 parts per million and that, once the concentration reaches 500 parts per million:\n\u201c[Y]our throat will shut down, you won\u2019t be able to breathe. You will probably collapse, and you won\u2019t be able to *** self rescue. You won\u2019t be able to walk away from the spill. So once you get over five hundred, you\u2019re probably going to be in great danger.\u201d\nIn addition, Trooper Kruse explained that, when shipped domestically, state and federal regulations require any vessel containing anhydrous ammonia to bear a label stating \u201cInhalation Hazard,\u201d which indicates that the substance being transported could cause \u201ceither great serious bodily harm or death\u201d if inhaled. When shipped internationally, such a vessel must also bear a skull and crossbones image and an additional label stating \u201cPoisonous Gas.\u201d In light of this evidence, all of which was uncontested, we have little difficulty concluding that a rational trier of fact easily could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed a \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d for purposes of section 20.5 \u2014 6(a). In fact, it is difficult to imagine how any other conclusion could have been possible.\nCONCLUSION\nAs used in section 20.5 \u2014 6(a), the phrase \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d refers to any gas that in suitable quantities has properties harmful or fatal to an organism when it is brought into contact with or absorbed by the organism. The State presented overwhelming evidence that anhydrous ammonia is just such a gas, and defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the State\u2019s case in any other respect. Accordingly, we reverse the appellate court\u2019s decision and affirm defendant\u2019s conviction.\nAppellate court judgment reversed; circuit court judgment affirmed.\nThroughout its analysis, the appellate court below borrowed heavily from the decision in People v. Qualls, 365 Ill. App. 3d 1015 (2006), which addressed the same issue presented here. For the sake of clarity, we will cite only to the appellate court\u2019s opinion below, omitting the corresponding citation to Qualls, which should simply be assumed throughout.\nNotably, the majority neglected to mention that the phrase \u201cpoisonous gas\u201d likewise appears in conjunction with the phrase \u201cradioactive substance,\u201d which unlike the phrase \u201cdeadly biological or chemical contaminant or agent,\u201d describes something that can be possessed for wholly benign purposes.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE THOMAS" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Dennis E. Simonton, State\u2019s Attorney, of Marshall (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Click and Michael R. Blankenheim, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, and Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman and Anastacia R. Brooks, of the Office of the State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of Springfield, of counsel), for the People.", "Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Gary R. Peterson, Deputy Defender, and Michael H. Vonnahmen, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Springfield, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 106219.\nTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. TROY DAVISON, Appellee.\nOpinion filed April 2, 2009.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Dennis E. Simonton, State\u2019s Attorney, of Marshall (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Click and Michael R. Blankenheim, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, and Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman and Anastacia R. Brooks, of the Office of the State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, of Springfield, of counsel), for the People.\nMichael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Gary R. Peterson, Deputy Defender, and Michael H. Vonnahmen, Assistant Appellate Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Springfield, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0030-01", "first_page_order": 42, "last_page_order": 57 }