People v. Williams (147 Ill. 2d 173, 1991)

JUSTICE FREEMAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant, Dennis Williams, was convicted of murder, aggravated kidnapping, and rape. Defendant was sentenced to death for the murders and to concurrent extended terms of 60 years for each of the remaining offenses. We affirmed over defendant’s contention, inter alia, that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. During the pendency of defendant’s petition for rehearing, this court became aware of matters relevant to the claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. We allowed defendant’s petition for rehearing, and determined that the interests of justice required the granting of a new trial. People v. Williams (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 309.

Following a second jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant was convicted of two counts of murder, one count of rape, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping. Defendant waived jury sentencing and was sentenced by the trial court to death and concurrent terms of 30 years. The death sentence was stayed (134 Ill. 2d R. 609(a)), pending direct appeal to this court (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §4(b); 134 Ill. 2d R. 603). For reasons which follow, we affirm.

Defendant raises numerous issues on appeal. We will address each, in turn.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On Thursday, May 11, 1978, at 12 a.m., Larry Lion-berg began his job as an attendant at a Clark Oil service station, at 180th Street and Halsted, in Homewood, Illinois. Sometime after Lionberg began his work-shift, his fiancee, Carol Schmal, joined him at the station. Sometime during the early morning hours, Peter Wonder and Sharon Macciaro, friends of both Lionberg and Schmal, visited the station for approximately 25 or 30 minutes. According to Macciaro, she and Wonder left at about 2:15 a.m.

At about 6:30 a.m., Clemente Morales, the manager of the Clark service station, drove past it and noticed that no one was on duty. Morales investigated and discovered that the station was in disarray and Lionberg was missing. Morales immediately called police.

On the following day, Lionberg’s body was found in a grassy area near Deer Creek, in East Chicago Heights. Lionberg had been shot twice in the back of the head, once in the back, and was found laying face down. Schmal’s body was discovered on the second floor of a nearby abandoned building located at 1528 Cannon Lane. Schmal was found laying face down, wearing a blouse and knee socks. Her pants and panties had been removed and were found lying beside her. She had been shot twice in the back of the head.

Later that day, police arrested defendant and Verneal Jimerson near the crime scene. The arrest was based upon a tip provided by an unidentified informant, later revealed to be Charles McCraney. Police subsequently took Kenny Adams and Willie Rainge into custody as well. Jimerson, Adams, and Rainge, however, were later released that evening, but defendant remained in custody.

The following day, McCraney went to the Homewood sheriff’s police station. After speaking with McCraney, police officers went to the home of Paula Gray and spoke with her. That evening, Gray and her family went to the police station where Gray was interviewed at length in the presence of her mother. Once again, police took Jimerson, Adams and Rainge into custody.

Gray subsequently testified before the Cook County grand jury, implicating defendant, Jimerson, Willie Rainge and her boyfriend, Kenny Adams, in the crimes. According to Gray’s grand jury testimony, she had been present in the abandoned building when Schmal had been successively raped by defendant, Adams, Jimerson, and Rainge, made to lie on her stomach, and shot twice in the back of the head by defendant. Gray testified that she had also been present at the grassy area near the creek when Lionberg was made to lie on his stomach, shot twice in the back of the head by defendant and once in the back by Rainge. According to Gray, defendant subsequently threw the gun used to kill both Schmal and Lionberg into the creek. Gray further testified that defendant had threatened to kill her and her family if she told the police. On both the nights preceding and following her grand jury appearance, Gray stayed at motels in police protective custody allegedly at the request of her mother.

When Gray later returned to her home, she discovered that her family had moved into defendant’s mother’s home. Two days later, on May 19, 1978, Gray was examined in the emergency room of St. James Hospital because she was exhibiting “bizarre” behavior. The following day, Gray was examined by Dr. Robert Watkins, a family practitioner, in his private offices. On May 21, 1978, she was again examined by Dr. Watkins, who admitted her to St. James Hospital where she remained for two days until discharge.

At some point after discovering that her family had moved into defendant’s mother’s home, Gray, herself, moved into the home and resided there with her family throughout the summer. During this period, Gray was called by defendant’s counsel, Archie Weston, to testify at defendant’s preliminary hearing. At the hearing, Gray recanted her entire grand jury testimony. She either failed to respond to questioning or simply repeated, when referred by defense counsel to each of her previous statements before the grand jury, “[Tjhat is a lie,” “[I] don’t know nothing,” or “[I] didn’t see nothing.” Defendant, Adams, and Rainge were subsequently charged by information with murder, rape, and aggravated kidnapping.

Shortly thereafter, Gray was indicted for her participation in the crimes, and for perjury. She was subsequently arrested and taken into custody. At a suppression hearing in her own case in October 1978, Gray repeated her recantation. Gray was tried simultaneously with defendant, Adams, and Rainge, although a separate jury was empaneled to hear Gray’s case. Attorney Weston, defendant and Rainge’s defense counsel represented Gray, following her indictment, at every hearing wherein she recanted her grand jury testimony (her suppression hearing and trial, defendant’s first trial and sentencing hearing), although neither Gray nor her family hired him.

At her trial, Gray claimed that the authorities had forced her to lie before the grand jury and continued to flatly deny that defendant, Adams, and Rainge raped Schmal. Defendant, Adams, Rainge and Gray were subsequently convicted of murder, rape and aggravated kidnapping. Gray was also convicted of perjury.

Defendant successfully appealed his conviction and death sentence and was granted a new trial. (See People v. Williams, 93 Ill. 2d 309.) Gray served 6 years of a 50-year term before an appeal resulted in the granting of a new trial. (United States ex rel. Gray v. Director, Department of Corrections (7th Cir. 1983), 721 F.2d 586.) At the time of Gray’s testimony at defendant’s second trial, her new trial remained pending. Following defendant’s second trial, Gray pleaded guilty to perjury and was sentenced to two years’ probation. All other charges against her were dropped.

TRIAL

McCraney’s Testimony

McCraney testified that during the early morning hours of Thursday, May 11, 1978, he was in the living room of his home, a second-story townhouse apartment, located at 1533 Hammond Lane, in East Chicago Heights (fairly five miles or more on thoroughfares from the Clark service station). McCraney, a jazz musician, was playing his guitar and composing a song. The front of McCraney’s apartment faced a courtyard and the back faced Hammond Lane. Throughout the evening, McCraney would periodically interrupt his playing to go upstairs and look through a back bedroom window to check on his two newly upgraded autos parked below on Hammond Lane.

McCraney testified that at about 3 a.m., he' looked through a back bedroom window and saw two cars, a blue Chevrolet and a beige Toyota parked outside. Several persons, including Paula Gray, Kenny Adams, and Verneal Jimerson, were sitting in the cars, walking about, and playing music. Adams was the driver of the beige Toyota, and Gray sat in his car as well as in a blue Chevrolet. During the two weeks that McCraney had lived there, these activities had occurred every night and it was not unusual for these various individuals to come and go many times from the vicinity during the day and evening. After looking out the window, McCraney went downstairs to the living room and resumed his guitar-playing.

After about 13 to 15 minutes, he returned to the upstairs bedroom window and again looked outside. This time, he saw a red Toyota backing up beside the beige Toyota. McCraney’s sighting of this red Toyota was not unusual, however, because it had appeared daily near 1528 Hammond Lane during the two weeks that McCraney and his family had lived in the apartment. In fact, by McCraney’s estimate, since 9 p.m., that evening, when he began looking out the upstairs window, the red Toyota had driven to and departed from the parking area several times. Seeing nothing unusual, McCraney once again returned to his living room and resumed playing.

Within 10 to 15 minutes, however, McCraney, was again at the upstairs window because he felt that “something wasn’t right” since the cars had “backed in.” In addition to the other parked cars, McCraney now saw a yellow Vega backing near the red Toyota. McCraney observed the driver of the Vega speak with the driver of the red Toyota while both remained in their vehicles. The driver of the red Toyota, identified by McCraney at trial as defendant, then started his car and drove it under a nearby street light. He exited his vehicle, picked up a stone, threw it, and broke the light. Defendant then reentered the red Toyota and backed it into the same space from which he had previously driven it.

When McCraney saw defendant break the light, he became nervous and continued to watch. He saw the driver of the yellow Vega, later identified as codefendant Willie Rainge, exit the Vega and enter the red Toyota. Defendant and Rainge then drove off in the red Toyota, headed east on Hammond Lane. Thinking that perhaps someone was preparing to or had already tampered with his car, McCraney went outside to check it. Finding nothing wrong, however, McCraney returned to his living room and continued playing his guitar.

Shortly after McCraney resumed playing, however, he heard a car engine strongly “revving,” so he went upstairs to the front bedroom window which looked out onto the courtyard area. McCraney saw the red Toyota stalled in mud and “gunning” its engine. McCraney testified that this viewing of the Toyota occurred not longer than three minutes after the auto had departed from the rear of his apartment heading east on Hammond Lane. At this point, McCraney also heard people running, so he rushed to the back bedroom window. There, he saw a group of people getting out of cars, running towards the courtyard area located at the front of his apartment. MeCraney testified that he remembered seeing Kenny Adams among these individuals.

Once the group rushed to the middle of the courtyard, McCraney saw them gather around and push the red Toyota until it moved forward to a position near the doorway of an abandoned building located at 1528 Cannon Lane. The group, comprised of six to eight persons, then rushed into the building. McCraney was able to clearly identify defendant, Rainge, and Adams, but not the other individuals, within the group. McCraney was not able to tell whether the group included any white persons or women. Under cross-examination, McCraney acknowledged that he did not see Paula Gray or Verneal Jimerson enter the building.

After the group entered the building, McCraney returned to his rehearsal and did not continue looking outside. After rehearsing for about lVz hours, McCraney heard a single echoing gunshot that came from the courtyard area in front of his apartment. He did not stop playing, however, since gunshots were not unusual during the night in that area.

On Friday, May 12, 1978, when Lionberg’s body was found, McCraney stood within a crowd of spectators gathered near his apartment building. The crowd watched as police investigated the crime scene. McCraney testified that, while standing there, he overheard defendant, also in the crowd, jokingly say to other onlookers, “[D]id you shoot those people? [D]id you shoot those people? *** [Y]ou should have seen them jump.” According to McCraney, when defendant made these remarks, only Lionberg’s body had been discovered. Mc-Craney subsequently acknowledged, however, that at> that time, he was aware that two persons were missing.

When McCraney learned that Schmal’s body had been discovered in the abandoned building, he reflected upon the events of the earlier morning, went to a nearby gas station and called police.

McCraney told police, “[T]he people that committed the crimes is on the scene now of the crime. *** I might come forward if these people are picked up.” McCraney described a beige and a red Toyota, and his own whereabouts to police. He did not, however, identify himself because, as he testified, he was concerned about the safety of his family. After calling, McCraney returned home.

The next day, McCraney went to the Homewood police station and spoke at length with police and identified two vehicles held by police as the red and beige Toyotas belonging to the persons he believed responsible for the murders.

Upon cross-examination, McCraney was impeached with his prior testimony given at defendant’s first trial that he last saw defendant and Rainge among the group of persons on the courtyard side of his apartment at “roughly” 2:47 to 2:48 a.m. McCraney explained, however, that he had never provided a specific time, but had estimated time based upon a television show, “Kojak,” and the 45-minute song which he had been composing. According to McCraney, “Kojak” had been on television “in the neighborhood” of 2 a.m., and he had played the song throughout the show and afterwards, but had not played it “straight through” due to interruptions. At the time that he had last viewed defendant’s car on Hammond Lane, the show had been over for longer than an hour. (The parties subsequently stipulated that “Kojak” aired on May 11, 1978, from 12:40 to 1:51 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.) Additional testimony of McCraney given at defendant’s first trial was then introduced, which was that he had played his song once after “Kojak” ended and was playing it a second time by 3 or 3:15 a.m. In addition, two prior inconsistent statements of McCraney were introduced to the effect that the group of persons had entered the abandoned building both at 2:15 to 2:30 a.m. and at 2:30 to 2:45-a.m. When questioned regarding these prior statements, McCraney maintained that they were in error.

McCraney testified that he had one clock in his home at the time he viewed these events. He maintained that his previous testimonies at defendant’s first trial (no clock in home) and at Jimerson’s separate trial (two clocks in home) were, respectively, incomplete, and possibly in error.

McCraney acknowledged that he had been given $1,000 by the State’s Attorney’s office in late 1978 for costs related to the relocation of his family. McCraney also acknowledged that in 1984, when he was again called to testify and was being threatened, he was given an additional $1,400 to purchase a car necessary to relocate his family out of State. Also, prior to testifying at defendant’s second trial, McCraney was given $1,200 to once again relocate his family.

Officers Capelli and Pasterik’s Testimony

Cook County Sheriff’s Police Investigator David Capelli and his partner, Patrick Pasterik, testified that they responded to the call concerning Lionberg’s disappearance from the service station. When they arrived, they searched an auto which was parked behind the station and discovered a woman’s purse. The purse contained Schmal’s driver’s license, receipts for a man’s wedding band and a dress deposit, and an envelope marked “Money for car,” which contained $125 in cash. The officers proceeded to Schmal’s residence, spoke with her father, and obtained a photo which depicted both Schmal and Lionberg.

Several days later, when Capelli and Pasterik were conducting their investigation at the site of Lionberg’s newly discovered body, they received a police dispatcher’s call on their hand-held radio. The dispatcher related that information had been received from an anonymous caller that the “killers” were present at the site, that they were watching the police investigation and had a red Toyota. After receiving this information, the two officers walked directly toward the crowd of onlookers. They observed defendant and Jimerson “briskly” emerge from the crowd and begin walking away. The officers followed and observed that either or both defendant and Jimerson looked back over their shoulders and speeded up their walk. The officers, in turn, walked faster following defendant and Jimerson to a red Toyota parked nearby. The officers stopped defendant and Jimerson just as the two men reached the vehicle. Defendant was standing with car keys in hand by the driver’s door and Jimerson stood by the front passenger’s door. According to Capelli, he and Pasterik initially focused their attention on defendant and Jimerson because they were the only two persons to briskly emerge from the crowd as the officers approached and then walk quickly away.

After the officers conducted an inventory search of the Toyota with defendant’s consent, defendant and Jimerson were taken into custody and transported to the Homewood sheriff’s police station.

Gray’s Testimony

Gray testified that on the evening of May 10, 1978, she and her boyfriend, Kenneth Adams, sat listening to music in his car parked in the vicinity of her family’s apartment located at 1525 Hammond Lane. Gray was 17 years old at the time and had not attended school past the ninth grade.

After a while, defendant drove up in his red Toyota and asked the couple whether they wanted any beer. They declined and, shortly thereafter, defendant left the area in his car. Gray and Adams continued to listen to music, but after some time, Gray became tired and went home. While she was inside her apartment, however, she heard a “strange noise” which, under cross-examination, she acknowledged was conversation. Gray left her own apartment and went next door to a vacant, unlighted apartment. She looked out the window towards the front of the apartment (Adams’ car had been parked in back). Gray saw defendant, Adams, Rainge and Jimerson around defendant’s car, which was stuck in the mud. Defendant then saw Gray, “came over” to her and grabbed her arm, but she resisted. Defendant then told Gray to accompany him and she did. When they approached defendant’s car, Gray saw two white adults, a male and a female, in the back seat of the car. The entire group of persons, two whites, defendant, Adams, Rainge, Jimerson and Gray then entered the building located at 1528 Cannon Lane. At the time, Gray saw no one trying to get defendant’s car out of the mud, nor did she hear the car’s motor running loudly, or running at all. When' the group entered the building, the car was still sitting in the mud.

Once the group entered the building, Rainge remained on the first floor with the white male while the others went upstairs to a back bedroom on the second floor. Once there, defendant ordered the-woman to undress, and she complied. According to Gray, she was able to see what occurred because defendant had given her a “Bic” lighter to light the room. Gray observed defendant rape the woman, as did Jimerson and Adams in succession. Jimerson then went downstairs, relieved Rainge, and Rainge raped the woman. Defendant and Jimerson then raped the woman a second time. When defendant instructed Adams to also do so again, he declined at Gray’s urging. Jimerson, however, relieved Rainge once more, and Rainge raped the woman again. Defendant then told the woman to turn over onto her stomach. He removed a “big” gun from his pocket, placed it close to the woman’s head and shot her twice.

The group then returned to the first floor where the white male was being watched by Jimerson. The entire group, with the exception of Adams who went home, then went outside near the creek. Despite being familiar with defendant, Rainge, and Jimerson for only one month, Gray testified, she was not afraid. Defendant then told the man to lie on his stomach. Gray was standing approximately 16 feet away in the unlit, darkened area and saw defendant shoot the man twice in the head. Defendant then gave the gun to Rainge, who shot the man once in the back. After Rainge returned the gun to defendant, defendant threw it into the creek. Defendant warned Gray that if she said anything, he would kill her and her family. Defendant’s threat frightened Gray at the time. Following these events, Gray returned home.

Gray’s version of the events of the crime was not impeached under cross-examination, except that she stated that she did not remember or did not know whether she had gone immediately home after the shootings. Gray, however, denied ever lying under oath, but then acknowledged that she had changed her testimony at defendant’s preliminary hearing. Gray also denied or could not remember previously testifying at the preliminary hearing to the effect that her grand jury testimony had been coerced. In response to most questions concerning previous inconsistent statements made during both defendant’s preliminary hearing and Gray’s first trial, Gray stated that she could not remember. Neither could she remember, among other things, events surrounding her protective custody; seeing Attorney Weston seated at the defense table during the preliminary hearing, or seeing him at all at that time; whether she had been previously tried; whether she had testified at trial; whether she had testified on other occasions, including the grand jury, even though transcripts were introduced; anything about her new trial other than that she would receive one; how she got inside the building that day before trial; whether she had a lawyer, or whether she had just testified that she had a lawyer, or that Weston had previously represented defendant. Gray did, however, testify that she had a problem “remembering things.” Gray also testified that while she was imprisoned, she had attempted to complete her high school graduation requirements, but was unable to do so.

During cross-examination by codefendant’s counsel, Gray was extensively questioned regarding whether the testimony she gave was prompted in hopes of receiving leniency. Although Gray did not understand the term “leniency,” she denied having any such expectations, denied discussing the issue with her lawyer, but said that her lawyer had told her “to tell the truth.” She further maintained that police had not beaten or verbally abused her when they had initially questioned her in 1978.

The transcript of Gray’s grand jury testimony was subsequently introduced as substantive evidence by the State. Likewise, the defense introduced Gray’s entire preliminary hearing question-and-answer testimony as substantive evidence. Six statements of Gray, made during her first trial, defendant’s death penalty hearing, and Jimerson’s trial, were also introduced by the defense for purposes of impeachment.

Additional Evidence

A post-mortem examination and autopsy of Lion-berg’s body by the Cook County medical examiner revealed the existence of four bullet wounds. One bullet had entered Lionberg’s back and exited his chest. Two bullets had entered the back of his head and lodged in his brain. Similarly, the examination and autopsy of Schmal’s body on that same date showed that two bullets had entered the back of her head. These had been fired presumably at close range, as indicated by the presence of a stippling effect around the wounds. The examiner further determined that both victims had been killed where their bodies were found.

Additionally, a police forensic firearms expert determined that Lionberg and Schmal had been killed by the same gun, but that the type of gun was unknown. This determination was made after Gray testified before the grand jury.

No physical evidence was introduced by the State other than photos of the victims, the scene, and defendants, bullet casings found at the scene, and a money changer belt which Lionberg was found wearing at death. The whereabouts of defendant’s red Toyota which the police had impounded was unknown to all parties.

DISCUSSION

Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence

Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motion to quash arrest and to suppress evidence. Defendant maintains that his warrantless arrest was not supported by probable cause (see People v. Free (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 378, 398-99), and therefore any evidence obtained as a result, ought to have been suppressed (see Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 83 S. Ct. 407). Defendant claims that the potentially excludable evidence is Capelli and Pasterik’s testimony concerning the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the arrest, itself. We disagree. The potentially excludable evidence is, rather, testimony as to matters observed during the allegedly unlawful activity. (See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. at 485, 9 L. Ed. 2d at 454, 83 S. Ct. at 416.) Their testimony was that defendant and Jimerson walked quickly to and were standing beside a red Toyota and that they were arrested. We turn now to consider the legality of defendant’s arrest.

A reviewing court will not disturb a trial court’s finding on a motion to suppress, unless that finding is manifestly erroneous. (People v. Reynolds (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 160, 165.) Our task on review is simply to ensure that the trial court had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 548, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332; People v. Tisler (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 226, 248.

The trial court making a probable cause determination is to apply standards at least as stringent as those that guide a magistrate in deciding whether to issue a warrant. (People v. Adams (1989), 131 Ill. 2d 387, 398; People v. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d at 236.) The trial court must determine whether “ ‘a reasonable and prudent man, having the knowledge possessed by the officer at the time of the arrest, would believe the defendant committed the offense.’ ” (Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d at 237, quoting People v. Wright (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 170, 174.) Whether the necessary probability exists is governed not by technical legal rules, but rather by commonsense considerations that are factual and practical. (People v. Mitchell (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 148, 153-54.) This review cannot be tainted by hindsight which may luckily seem to be supported by the fruit of some criminality; rather, the review must center on the information available to the officers preceding the arrest. People v. Adams, 131 Ill. 2d at 398.

If the facts supplied in an informant’s tip are essential to a finding of probable cause, the tip must meet standards of reliability before it can be considered in determining probable cause. (People v. James (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 214, 222; People v. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d at 236-37.) Under the totality of the circumstances analysis, a deficiency in one prong of the traditional test of an informant’s tip (credibility or reliability) may be compensated for in determining the overall reliability of the tip by a showing as to the other (the basis of knowledge). Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 233, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 545, 103 S. Ct. at 2339.

Substantial corroboration would not only establish an informant’s veracity, but would also support an inference that an informant obtained his story reliably. (People v. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d at 251.) Whether such corroboration consists of innocent or incriminating activity is not the question. Instead, the proper focus is “ ‘whether the actions of the suspects, whatever their nature, give rise to an inference that the informant is credible and that he obtained his information in a reliable manner.’ ” People v. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d at 251, quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 269, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 568, 103 S. Ct. at 2348 (White, J., concurring).

McCraney’s tip was the essential ingredient to the determination of probable cause by Capelli and Pasterik. McCraney advised police that those persons responsible' for the slayings were in a crowd of spectators observing the police investigation of the crime scene. His tip further provided that these persons had a red Toyota which was located nearby.

We believe that the almost immediately observable actions of the defendant, i.e., his “brisk” emergence from the crowd, his quickly walking away from approaching police towards a red auto and looking over his shoulder, support an inference that McCraney was credible and his information was reliable. Such corroborated information, combined with the officers’ experience and knowledge, provided a substantial basis for the trial court to conclude that probable cause existed. Consequently, the defendant’s motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence was properly denied.

Disallowance of Gray’s Testimony During Hearing on Motion In Limine

Defendant contends that the trial court improperly refused to allow Gray to testify at a pretrial competency hearing, despite the existence of medical testimony that Gray had been diagnosed and hospitalized with an “acute schizophrenic reaction” immediately after the killings.

Defendant filed a pretrial motion styled “Motion in Limine to Bar the Testimony of Paula Gray,” on the basis of her alleged incompetency. Attached to the motion were copies of Gray’s hospital records for May 22-24, 1978, written and signed by Dr. Watkins.

Prior to hearing on the motion, the trial court ruled that Gray would not testify because the mere fact of defendant’s challenge to her competency did not, by itself, justify a competency hearing. The trial court determined, however, that if defendant made a sufficient showing which would call Gray’s competency into question, the court would then conduct a hearing as to competency and her testimony would be allowed. Defendant failed to make such a showing, however, and no competency hearing was held.

Factors warranting a decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry as to competency must necessarily call into question the witness’ ability to observe, recollect, and communicate. (See People v. Jones (1988), 123 Ill. 2d 387, 405; see also People v. Porter (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 976, 984 (defense denied the opportunity to voir dire witness with respect to competency on the basis of an arrest record indicating previous narcotics charges).) Even where a competency determination is to be made, due process does not require an examination of the witness by the challenging party. See People v. Seel (1979), 68 Ill. App. 3d 996, 1002-03.

In the present case, medical records produced by the defense in support of its motion and the testimony of Dr. Watkins failed to establish a connection between Gray’s past mental problem and her ability to give competent testimony. Hospitalization itself does not reflect on Gray’s competence to testify at trial; at most it established that she had once been treated for an acute schizophrenic reaction, albeit shortly after the killings, a fact the State conceded. In addition, there was no showing that Gray continued to suffer from such disability, or that she was thus disabled at the time of the killings. Consequently, we find that the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request to examine Gray was in the exercise of sound discretion.

Defendant maintains, however, as a related matter, that the subsequent admission of Gray’s testimony at trial was plain error because she was incompetent. A witness is competent to testify if he has the capacity to observe, recollect, and communicate, and his mental deficiency is considered only insofar as it affects credibility. (People v. Jones (1988), 123 Ill. 2d 387, 405; see People v. Dixon (1961), 22 Ill. 2d 513, 515-16.) Thus, sanity is not the test of competency. (People v. Seel, 68 Ill. App. 3d at 1006.) Likewise, an individual suffering from mental retardation is legally competent to testify so long as he possesses the requisite capacities, and the burden to show otherwise is upon the party questioning competency. (People v. Spencer (1983), 119 Ill. App. 3d 971, 977.) The determination of whether a witness is competent to testify is within the sound discretion of the trial court and may be arrived at either through preliminary inquiry or by observing the witness’ demeanor and ability to testify during trial. See People v. Spencer, 119 Ill. App. 3d at 976; People v. Ford (1985), 139 Ill. App. 3d 894, 901.

Our review reveals that the trial court’s subsequent admission of Gray’s testimony at trial was proper. Gray’s testimony in toto indicates that Gray was a competent witness. Any inconsistency regarding whether Gray had previously lied under “oath” obviously concerned her inability to understand the meaning of the term “oath,” rather than a failure to understand any moral duty to tell the truth. It is true that Gray displayed a marked tendency to remember events under direct examination, and to forget matters unrelated to the crime itself during cross-examination. Yet, this tendency appears somewhat justified given the fact that much of that cross-examination concerned whether she remembered making certain specific statements during any of several, previous separate hearings. In total, we believe that Gray’s memory lapses, however, reflect more upon her credibility than her capacities. She even admitted that her memory improved “a little bit” upon redirect examination.

In the final analysis, the trial- court is in the best position to ascertain a witness’ competence based upon her appearance and conduct at trial and we will not disturb that finding absent an abuse of discretion. (See People v. Garcia (1983), 97 111. 2d 58, 78.) We find none here.

The Conduct of Voir Dire

Defendant raises four arguments in support of his contention that the conduct of voir dire represented an abuse of discretion. First, defendant maintains that questioning conducted in the presence of the entire venire was improper under the circumstances of this case.

The record shows that defendant filed a motion requesting that the trial court conduct a sequestered voir dire of prospective jurors, which the trial court granted over objection. Some months later, however, when the case was ready for trial, no additional courtrooms were available in which the trial court could conduct the sequestered voir dire as had been originally contemplated. The trial court rejected a suggestion by defense counsel concerning a possible alternative as being logistically difficult considering security, and stated that it had likewise considered several alternatives, but none seemed feasible. Consequently, the trial court reversed its earlier ruling by stating that it would conduct voir dire in the presence of the entire venire. The parties might, however, exercise their peremptory challenges in chambers, out of the presence of the prospective jurors.

During the general questioning of prospective jurors, the trial court inquired as to whether they had previous knowledge of the case. Those nine prospective jurors who had were then questioned in detail regarding that knowledge, and specifically asked whether they could remain fair and impartial. The questioning did not reveal the details of their knowledge. Each one of the nine prospective jurors were eventually either peremptorily excused or excused for cause.

In People v. Neal (1985), 111 Ill. 2d 180, we considered this same issue. There, as here, the trial court ruled that, because of the lack of security and available facilities, voir dire could not be conducted as requested. The trial court allowed that individual, rather than collective, responses from jurors concerning death penalty questioning would be received, and directed counsel to avoid prejudicial wording of questions. We held that, while Supreme Court Rules 431 and 234 (134 Ill. 2d Rules 431, 234) allowed the trial court, in the exercise of discretion, to conduct individual voir dire out of the presence of other jurors, it was not required to do so. (People v. Neal, 111 Ill. 2d at 198.) We found that the precautions taken by the trial court to prevent prejudice sufficiently dispelled any suggestion of taint caused by its failure to individually question jurors.

As in Neal, the trial court here was constrained by physical and security factors which compelled that voir dire be conducted in the presence of all prospective jurors. Considering that the trial court sought to effectively eliminate the possibility of taint by individual questioning of those prospective jurors who expressed knowledge of the case, we do not find an abuse of discretion. Neither do we find that the trial court’s directive to the prospective jurors to “listen carefully” undercut those preventive measures. Moreover, we do not find any suggestion of taint since every juror, thus individually questioned, was subsequently eliminated from the panel.

Defendant next maintains that the trial court’s questioning of the prospective jurors pursuant to Wither-spoon v. Illinois (1968), 391 U.S. 510, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776, 88 S. Ct. 1770, improperly resulted in a jury that was conviction-prone and unrepresentative of the community. We have repeatedly held that the qualification of jurors pursuant to Witherspoon does not deny a defendant the right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, nor does it result in a conviction-prone jury. (People v. Flores (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 66, 92; People v. Gacy (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 1, 37-38.) Since defendant has not presented any argument which we have not previously considered, and this case does not involve a unique factual situation, we decline to reconsider our stated position.

Defendant’s third contention is that the trial court erred in excluding a prospective juror for cause who was not irrevocably committed to vote against the death penalty regardless of facts and circumstances. (See Gray v. Mississippi (1987), 481 U.S. 648, 95 L. Ed. 2d 622, 107 S. Ct. 2045.) We disagree. Exclusion was proper.

A capital defendant’s right to an impartial jury prohibits the exclusion of venire members simply because they voice general objections to the death penalty or express conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. (Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 522, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 785, 88 S. Ct. at 1777.) The Court reasoned that the exclusion of venire members must be limited to those who were “irrevocably committed *** to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings” and to those whose views could prevent them from making an impartial decision on the question of guilt. (Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 522 n.21, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 785 n.21, 88 S. Ct. at 1777 n.21; see Gray v. Mississippi (1987), 481 U.S. 648, 95 L. Ed. 2d 622, 107 S. Ct. 2045.) The relevant inquiry is “whether the juror’s views would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’ ” Wainwright v. Witt (1985), 469 U.S. 412, 424, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841, 851-52, 105 S. Ct. 844, 852; see Gray, 481 U.S. at 658, 95 L. Ed. 2d at 633, 107 S. Ct. at 2051.

In People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 237, we applied the standard set forth in Witt and held that the trial court properly excluded a prospective juror based on his responses to Witherspoon questions. The prospective juror’s responses had been equivocal as to whether he would ever impose the death penalty. However, he finally responded that it was true that he could not consider the death penalty. Recognizing that the trial court was in a superior position to ascertain the meaning which the juror intended to convey, we expressed our satisfaction that the juror was excused in compliance with Witherspoon. People v. Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 280.

In the present case, the juror in question first unequivocally stated that she had scruples against the death penalty. The juror then indicated that she did not possess such scruples regardless of the facts. When next asked, however, whether her scruples would impair her ability to determine guilt or innocence, she responded almost inaudibly that she did not understand the question. When asked the question again after a brief explanation, the juror replied, “[N]o, I don’t believe ***,” but the trial court could not hear anything except “[N]o.” When finally asked whether, if defendant was found guilty of murder, she could consider all the possible penalties available, including the death penalty, the juror replied, “[N]o.” In ruling on the matter, the trial court commented upon the juror’s physical expressions, and the fact that she was a teacher, appeared intelligent, seemed to understand clearly, but also seemed reluctant to answer.

Based upon this review, we are convinced that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that this juror’s views would substantially impair the performance of her duties.

Defendant’s final related argument on this issue has two components. First, defendant maintains that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for attorney-conducted voir dire pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 234 (134 Ill. 2d R. 234). Second, defendant claims that the trial court’s stated standard voir dire procedure, generally disallowing counsel’s direct participation, operated as an abuse of discretion.

Supreme Court Rule 234 provides that “[t]he court shall conduct the voir dire examination of prospective jurors by putting to them questions it thinks appropriate touching their qualifications to serve as jurors in the case on trial. The court *** may permit the parties to supplement the examination by such direct inquiry as the court deems proper.” (Emphasis added.) (134 Ill. 2d R. 234.) “Examination of prospective jurors by court or by counsel is *** a matter of trial detail which courts can regulate in the exercise of judicial discretion.” (People v. Jackson (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 252, 260.) Upon review, the Illinois appellate court has held that the standard for evaluating the court’s exercise of discretion during the voir dire is whether. the questions and procedures created reasonable assurance that any prejudice or bias would be discovered. People v. Sanders (1986), 143 Ill. App. 3d 402, 405.

Defendant filed a pretrial motion to permit defense counsel to participate in the full .voir dire of the jury. Following arguments on the motion, the trial court outlined the voir dire procedure which it usually employed, which was to question prospective jurors itself, allow supplemental written questions, and permit sidebars during the actual questioning in the event sufficient information was not elicited. Beyond that, the trial court stated that it did not usually allow counsel to participate. The trial court acknowledged, however, that it would consider attorney participation in voir dire in “exceptional circumstances.”

During the subsequent voir dire, the trial court questioned each prospective juror concerning, inter alia, biographical background, prior jury service and knowledge of the case, relationships and acquaintances with attorneys, victims, witnesses, defendants, police officers, judges, group affiliations, and racial prejudice. Jurors were “Witherspooned” and questioned pursuant to People v. Zehr (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 472. When the trial court conducted voir dire of the prospective juror who admitted to scruples concerning the death penalty, defense counsel asked to participate. The trial court, however, denied the request, stating that the juror might be influenced to change her responses.

We believe that the questioning and procedures revealed by this record reasonably assured that prejudice and bias would be discovered. We can discern no reason whatsoever to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying counsel’s participation. The trial court’s usual procedure, even if routinely adhered to, fully comports with Rule 234 (134 Ill. 2d R. 234). Accordingly, defendant’s argument lacks merit.

Racially Motivated Exclusion of Potential Jurors

Defendant contends that the trial court failed to require the State to sufficiently explain its use of three peremptory challenges of blacks in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69, 106 S. Ct. 1712. Specifically, defendant argues that he established a prima facie case of three racially motivated peremptory challenges; yet, the trial court found otherwise. We note that upon review a trial court’s determination that a defendant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination will not be overturned unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Evans (1988), 125 Ill. 2d 50, 71.

Initially, the State counters that defendant has waived consideration of any potential Batson issue by failing to create a record of the race of the prospective jurors chosen and excluded. (See People v. Sims (1987), 166 Ill. App. 3d 289, 311-12.) Our review of the record indicates, however, that the race of at least 17 venire members was established. Furthermore, our review reveals that defense counsel attempted to create a more complete record, but the trial court disallowed counsel’s attempt, stating that the record stood for itself. Accordingly, we find no waiver of the issue.

To meet the first element of the Batson test for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, a defendant must show the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges to remove members of a cognizable racial group from the venire. (Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 87, 106 S. Ct. at 1723.) The only question which then remains is whether considering “all relevant circumstances,” a prima facie case of discrimination has been established. (Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 87-88, 106 S. Ct. at 1723; People v. Mahaffey (1989), 128 Ill. 2d 388, 412-13.) Once the defendant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the prosecution to come forward with race-neutral reasons for striking the black venire members. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 88,106 S. Ct. at 1723.

Relevant circumstances a trial court may consider when determining whether a prima facie case of discrimination has been established include: a “ ‘pattern’ of strikes against black jurors” (Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 88, 106 S. Ct. at 1723); the disproportionate use of peremptory challenges against blacks; whether the excluded blacks were a heterogeneous group sharing race as their only common characteristic; the level of black representation in the venire as compared to the jury; the race of the defendant and the victim. (Mahaffey, 128 Ill. 2d at 413, citing People v. Evans (1988), 125 Ill. 2d 50, 63-64.) The trial court, however, must avoid arbitrarily deciding this delicate question solely from the number of blacks peremptorily challenged. Mahaffey, 128 Ill. 2d at 413; Evans, 125 Ill. 2d at 64, citing People v. Hooper (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 244, 247-49.

The record demonstrates that two blacks were selected for the first panel of four jurors and the State had 20 peremptory challenges remaining. A third black was selected for the second panel and, at that time, the State had at the least 18 peremptory challenges remaining, having exercised three. After the State utilized its 13th, 14th, and 15th peremptories against three blacks, defense counsel objected on the basis that these persons were indistinguishable from whites accepted by the State, except for their race. At this point the State had exercised six peremptories against blacks concerning whom defense counsel conceded there was a minimal basis for challenge. It had also challenged, at the least, three nonblack persons, a young female with a European surname and two persons whose race is not of record, including a female implicitly identified as black.

Following argument, the trial court ruled no prima facie case of discrimination under Batson had been established. In ruling, the trial court stated that it considered all of the circumstances it had had the benefit to observe, including the number of blacks accepted relative to the number of challenges remaining to the State. The trial court requested, however, that the State provide the basis for its three challenges for the benefit of the record. According to the State all three of the challenged black jurors were in their 20s, owned no property, had no long-standing positions or affiliations in the community, and were not married. The trial court then stood on its previous decision.

We conclude that the trial court’s finding that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court had the benefit of observing the tenor of the State’s challenges, and could determine that some blacks had been accepted while the State still possessed peremptory challenges, that more had been justifiably challenged, and that a sizeable representation of nonblacks had also been challenged. Furthermore, the trial court could also determine the extent to which the three jurors in question were, in fact, similar to whites who had been accepted. We therefore decline to overturn the trial court’s decision on the basis of the record as it stands.

Evidence and Argument of Witness Intimidation

Defendant next contends that plain error occurred by the admission of McCraney’s testimony that he was fearful of defendant, had been threatened, and that he and his family were relocated. Defendant also maintains that the State was improperly allowed to argue, in closing, such alleged intimidation of McCraney and his family.

Prior to trial, the State provided the defense with information that McCraney had received sums of money for relocation purposes. During direct examination of McCraney at trial, the State elicited testimony concerning several relocations, and the amounts of money Mc-Craney received from the State for each move. Before giving that testimony, McCraney testified that he did not identify himself when he initially called the police because “they” (the suspects) had friends and relatives in the area, and he was concerned about the safety of his wife and four daughters. McCraney also attributed his request for relocation to his concerns for the safety of his family. Defense counsel made no objection to this testimony.

In response to subsequent questioning regarding what he was doing at the time he was called to testify in 1984, McCraney replied that he was living with his family and being threatened. Defense counsel objected to this testimony. The trial court, however, overruled the objection on grounds that McCraney’s testimony of “being threatened” was probative of the reasons for his relocation. The trial court also concluded, inter alia, that the testimony was not prejudicial because the jury was aware that both defendants were in custody in 1984.

The State continued to examine McCraney about his 1984 relocation and McCraney testified that the State paid $1,400 to a car dealer in his behalf. When asked why this money was paid, McCraney responded, “ [Ejecause I had been approached by three men — .” Defense counsel then interrupted with an objection which was sustained.

Despite defendant’s failure to object and raise this issue in a written post-trial motion, we will review pursuant to the plain error doctrine, as the evidence in this case is closely balanced. People v. Herrett (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 195, 209; 134 Ill. 2d R 615(a).

In the present case, the State could reasonably anticipate that the defense would attempt to impeach McCraney during cross-examination with evidence that he had received several sums of money from the State for relocation. (See People v. Gonzalez (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 332, 337, quoting Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308, 316-17, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347, 354, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 1110 (the partiality of a witness is subject to exploration at trial, and is “always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony”); see also People v. Harris (1988), 123 Ill. 2d 113, 147.) Furthermore, the State could expect that the trial court would allow defense counsel the widest latitude in establishing any bias or motive on McCraney’s part. See People v. Wilkerson (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 151,156.

Considering that prospect, the State obviously chose to anticipatorily impeach McCraney with questions concerning the money he received and the purposes for which it was used. Supreme Court Rule 238(a) allows such anticipatory impeachment to reduce the prejudicial effect of certain evidence upon a witness’ credibility. (134 Ill. 2d R. 238(a). See People v. Soskins (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 564, 573.) Certainly, this evidence was probative of any bias that McCraney might have. (See Gabosch v. Tullman (1974), 21 Ill. App. 3d 908, 913.) Significantly, defense counsel did not find this line of inquiry objectionable and in fact cross-examined McCraney regarding the relocations and monies received as the State had anticipated. Consequently, we cannot say that defendant was prejudiced, and find that the admission of this testimony was a proper exercise of discretion.

With respect to McCraney’s fears for the safety of his family, McCraney’s testimony did not link his fear to defendant. While the mere fact that the evidence did not link the threats to defendant does not vitiate any possibility of prejudice (see People v. West (1971), 3 Ill. App. 3d 106, 119), prejudice to the defendant must still be judged by considering the nature of the evidence, itself. Here, McCraney simply made general statements about being afraid, a reaction quite reasonable for any person in McCraney’s position. Hence, we do not find that allowance of McCraney’s testimony that he was afraid to involve himself prejudiced defendant.

Concerning McCraney’s two responses that he was threatened, we find that such statements were properly allowed even without curative instruction. Each of Mc-Craney’s responses mentioning threats were probative of the reasons for McCraney’s relocations. Even so, McCraney’s statements appear not to have been purposely elicited in that one at least was voluntarily offered and both were nonresponsive to the particular questioning. Even defense counsel acknowledged this fact during a sidebar at the time (“I am afraid the man is going to answer something that you didn’t ask him”). Considering the nature of the evidence here, and its manner of introduction, we cannot say that such testimony was improperly allowed.

This case is not comparable to Dudley v. Duckworth (7th Cir. 1988), 854 F.2d 967, relied upon by defendant. In Dudley, the prosecutor elicited a witness’ testimony of anonymous telephone threats supposedly in order to explain the witness’ nervousness during his direct examination. The appeals court found no indication from its review of the record that the witness was nervous except for a suggestion which was prompted by the prosecutor’s questioning. The court noted that the prosecution made no attempt to explore that part of the witness’ testimony which seemed to indicate that his condition might be explained on some basis other than threats. Additionally, the court found a strong possibility that the witness’ condition was simply a pretext for the prosecution’s line of inquiry, inasmuch as no measures were taken to calm the witness, and after testifying to the threats, there was no further concern with his condition.

By contrast, in the present case, there was good reason for the prosecution to undertake the particular line of questioning which elicited the complained-of responses. In addition, the State did not manipulate the questioning in such a way that encouraged McCraney to testify about threats, nor did the State continue to explore the subject of threats. McCraney’s statements were quite brief and, therefore, must be viewed in the context of this lengthy trial. Furthermore, the State did not rely upon any evidence of threats during closing argument.

Finally, defendant contends that the prosecution improperly emphasized evidence of McCraney’s intimidation during closing argument. Defense counsel did not object to the allegedly prejudicial argument, and any error would normally be considered waived unless the comments were so inflammatory that defendant could not have received a fair trial, or so flagrant as to threaten deterioration of the judicial process. (People v. Owens (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 88, 104.) We have considered the comments allegedly constituting prejudicial error and they do not rise to either level.

During closing the State remarked that McCraney had children and did not know if he wanted to get involved. The prosecutor argued that McCraney called police, reasoning to himself:

“[Mjaybe I will be willing to testify if they are picked up and I can be relocated.”

The prosecutor then urged the jury to consider McCraney:

“Charles McCraney is just a decent human being. I am sure today he regrets ever making that phone call or at least ever coming forward. You heard that he had to go to court over and over again, and be questioned at length by lawyers as Mr. Gant. *** [F]or gosh sake, he has even had to move his wife and daughters. He lost a job from E & R Securities, because of his involvement in this case.”

The argument that McCraney was relocated several times was based upon evidence properly admitted at trial to which defendant did not object and which he, in fact, explored on cross-examination. (See People v. Owens, 102 Ill. 2d at 105.) Moreover, the State’s argument did not argue any correlation between McCraney’s relocation and any threats, nor did it emphasize McCraney’s fears. Accordingly, we do not find that defendant suffered any prejudice by these remarks.

Admission of Prior Consistent Statements

Defendant maintains that the admission into evidence of Gray’s grand jury testimony as a prior consistent statement denied him a fair trial and constituted plain error.

At trial, codefendant’s counsel’s cross-examination impugned Gray’s motive to testify and extensively questioned her expectations as to leniency regarding her pending retrial. Gray was also substantially impeached by the introduction of her prior inconsistent statements given during previous proceedings. Without objection, the State subsequently introduced, through a court-reporter witness, Gray’s grand jury testimony. Again, despite defendant’s failure to object at trial and raise this issue in a written post-trial motion, we take cognizance of this issue by invocation of the plain error rule. 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a).

A witness may not be corroborated on direct examination by proof of prior statements consistent with his testimony. (People v. Powell (1973), 53 Ill. 2d 465, 472.) Moreover, when a witness is impeached by means of a prior inconsistent statement, if a consistent statement does not disprove or explain the making of the inconsistent statement, it is not admissible. (M. Graham, Cleary & Graham’s Handbook of Illinois Evidence §611.14 (5th ed. 1990).) However, prior consistent statements are admissible to rebut a charge or an inference that the witness is motivated to testify falsely or that his testimony is of recent fabrication, and such evidence is admissible to show that he told the same story before the motive came into existence or before the time of the alleged fabrication. P