People v. Scott (148 Ill. 2d 479, 1992)

JUSTICE CLARK

delivered the opinion of the court:

On August 17, 1984, defendant, Larry Scott, was indicted for murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault and attempted robbery in relation to the death of Kristin Kent, the victim. Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant was found guilty of murder, guilty of attempted robbery, and guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) of aggravated criminal sexual assault. The State moved for a separate sentencing hearing on imposition of the death penalty. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 9 — 1(d).) Defendant waived his right to a jury for the sentencing hearing. The trial court found defendant was eligible for the death sentence because he was more than 18 years old at the time of the offense, and he committed murder in the course of committing a forcible felony, aggravated criminal sexual assault. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 9 — 1(b); see also People v. Crews (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 266 (holding that a defendant may be sentenced to death even though he has been found guilty but mentally ill).) After finding there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude imposition of the death penalty, the court sentenced defendant to death. The sentence was stayed pending direct appeal to this court. (111. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 9 — l(i).) In addition, defendant was sentenced to serve 30 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections for the offense of aggravated criminal sexual assault. No sentence was imposed for the offense of attempted robbery.

WMle the case was pending review in this court, defendant was granted leave to file a post-sentencing motion (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, par. 2 — 1401 et seq.) in the trial court. In addition to a post-sentencing motion, defendant also filed a supplemental motion for a new trial. On the State’s motion, this court instructed the trial court to consider defendant’s post-sentencing motion only. Defendant then amended his post-sentencing motion to include allegations of trial error, arguing that the trial errors impacted on the sentencing hearing. Based on the prior order from this court, the trial court refused to consider those allegations. After a hearing the trial court denied defendant’s post-sentencing motion.

I

The victim was a resident student at the Moody Bible Institute located in the 800 block of North La Salle Street in Chicago. At approximately 9 p.m. on August 4, 1984, she left her job at the East Bank Health Club. On August 6, 1984, her body was found in an alley behind a building located at 711 North Wells Street. One of her nipples had been severed.

On August 6, Sarah Buschbaum read a newspaper report about the victim’s murder and called police to inform them that on the night of August 4, she had been followed by a man in the same neighborhood in which the victim’s body had been found. On that night, Buschbaum left her job in Water Tower Place at approximately 8:35 p.m. and proceeded west on Chestnut Street towards her car, which was parked on La Salle Street. While she was walking, she noticed that a man was following her. Buschbaum took several evasive steps, but the man continued to follow her. By the time she reached Clark Street, there were no other people on the street. Buschbaum then ran into the lobby of an apartment building which she knew was attended by a doorman. The assailant continued to watch Buschbaum from across the street as he walked towards La Salle Street. Buschbaum waited a few minutes and then proceeded to her car. Before she reached her car, she noticed the man walking west on Chicago Avenue from La Salle towards Wells. Buschbaum described the assailant as a black man in his late twenties, 5 feet 6 inches to 5 feet 8 inches in height with a medium build, and wearing a gold plaid suit with a herringbone background.

In the early evening of August 7, 1984, police officers Charles Daly and Michael Angarone were on routine pa-, trol in the 600 block of North Wells. At this time, they saw a woman walking north on Wells and a man following quickly behind her. The man, who was later identified as defendant, matched the description provided by Buschbaum. Defendant saw the police officers and slowed his pace to allow a greater distance between himself and the woman. The police passed defendant, made a U-turn and approached defendant from behind. At this time, the officers noticed defendant was walking up quickly behind the woman. Defendant noticed the police and again slowed his pace. The police passed defendant, went around the block and approached defendant a third time. Defendant was again walking quickly behind the woman, until he saw the police. This time defendant turned to walk south on Wells in the opposite direction of the woman. The police made another U-turn, and as they approached defendant, he turned and walked towards an “El” station.

Daly and Angarone got out of their squad car and ordered defendant to stop. The officers asked defendant for identification, at which point defendant gave them several papers. As Angarone began to unwrap the papers, defendant pushed Angarone and yelled “I’m going to kill you.” Daly and Angarone subdued defendant and placed him in handcuffs. Angarone then picked up the papers, which he had dropped during the struggle with defendant. At this time, Angarone noticed a newspaper article about the victim’s murder. As Angarone unfolded the article, defendant screamed “That pussy bitch. That pussy bitch. I’m tired of hearing about her.”

Angarone and Daly arrested defendant for disorderly conduct and transported him to the 18th district Chicago police station. While en route to the 18th district, the officers advised defendant of his Miranda rights.

At approximately 9:30 p.m. on August 7, Detectives O’Leary and Elmore transported defendant from District 18 to the Area 6 Violent Crimes offices. The detectives placed defendant in an office, uncuffed him and left him alone in the room for about one hour. When they returned at about 11 p.m., O’Leary read the Miranda warnings to defendant. Defendant responded that he understood each right. The detectives then questioned defendant for approximately 45 minutes.

At approximately 2 a.m. on August 8, Detectives Sappanos and Paul interviewed defendant at Area 6. Sappanos read the Miranda warnings to defendant from a police manual. Defendant responded that he understood each right. This interview lasted 45 minutes to one hour. During the interview, defendant’s answers were succinct and understandable.

Between 3 a.m. and 8 a.m., Sappanos checked on defendant and found that he was asleep in the interview room. At 8 a.m., Sappanos woke defendant, allowed him to use the bathroom and provided him with food. Sappanos then readvised defendant of his Miranda rights, and defendant responded that he understood each right. This interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.

At about 10:45 a.m. Detectives Sappanos and Paul interviewed defendant again. They readvised defendant of his Miranda rights and defendant indicated he understood each right. At the detectives request, defendant agreed to ride with the officers to the 700 block of North Wells and to the Oak Street Beach where he slept on the night of the murder. On the way back to the police station, the officers stopped at a McDonald’s restaurant and ordered food for defendant.

Detective Sappanos was present when Assistant State’s Attorney Edward Snow interviewed defendant at 2 p.m. on August 8, 1984, in the interview room at Area 6. Snow advised defendant of his Miranda rights and defendant responded that he understood. After a 45-min-ute interview, defendant agreed to make a statement. Snow then summoned a court reporter who transcribed defendant’s answers to Snow’s questions.

During his statement to Snow, defendant stated that the police did not mistreat him, and that he understood his Miranda rights. Defendant stated that he initially approached the victim for money, and took her into an alley. Defendant stated the victim called him “a little black nigger” and began to struggle. Defendant hit the victim several times, knocking her unconscious. While the victim was unconscious, defendant had vaginal and oral sex with her, during which time he bit her nipples and vagina. After having sex with the victim, defendant hid her body. During this time, the victim did not move or say anything, but defendant stated that she appeared to be breathing.

II

Defendant first contends that the trial court should have granted his pretrial motion to quash arrest. Officer Daly was the only witness called to testify at the hearing on the motion to quash. During his argument at the close of evidence, defendant conceded that the initial stop could be justified by less than probable cause. In effect, this argument conceded that defendant was not arrested at the time of the initial stop. In denying defendant’s motion to quash arrest, the trial judge stated, “I think that the officer has set forth articulable facts to justify the police stopping [defendant]. And then of course the matters that proceeded after he stopped him certainly justify him being placed under arrest.”

Defendant now maintains that he was arrested at the time the police stopped him and asked for identification. Defendant argues that because the officers did not have probable cause to believe defendant had committed an offense, this arrest violated his fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. However, as noted above, defendant conceded in the trial court that the initial stop was not an arrest. Therefore, we will only consider whether the officer’s actions met the lower standard necessary to justify an investigatory stop.

In Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868, the Supreme Court recognized that “a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” (Terry, 392 U.S. at 22, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 906, 88 S. Ct. at 1880.) In a later case, the Court stated “[a] brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity *** may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” Adams v. Williams (1972), 407 U.S. 143, 146, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612, 617, 92 S. Ct. 1921, 1923.

In Illinois, the Terry exception to the probable cause requirement has been codified in section 107 — 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, which provides in pertinent part:

“A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102 — 15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 107 — 14.

In order to justify an investigative stop, the police must identify “specific articulable facts which, when taken together with natural inferences, make the intrusion reasonable.” (People v. Smithers (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 430, 436, citing People v. McGowan (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 73, 78.) These facts “need not meet probable cause requirements, but they must justify more than a mere hunch.” (People v. Long (1983), 99 Ill. 2d 219, 228.) When considering whether an officer was justified in making an investigatory stop, “the facts should not be viewed with analytical hindsight, but instead should be considered from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the time that the situation confronted him.” Long, 99 Ill. 2d at 229.

In the present case, the police were aware that at approximately the same time the murder was committed, a man matching defendant’s description had followed Buschbaum in the general vicinity of the murder. Three days after the murder, two officers saw defendant following another woman within two blocks of the murder scene. Before stopping defendant and requesting his identification, the officers observed defendant as he alternately walked up quickly behind the woman and slowed to allow distance between himself and the woman, depending on whether he noticed the police nearby. We believe these articulable facts and the natural inferences which may be drawn from them justified the police stopping defendant for questioning. Further, in light of defendant’s actions after he was stopped, the police were justified in arresting him for disorderly conduct. Therefore the trial court’s ruling was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Ill

Defendant next argues that his conviction must be reversed because he was not fit to stand trial. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court erred in ruling defendant was fit for trial after finding that he suffered from a mental disease or defect and that he was unable to cooperate with his own counsel. (See 111. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 104 — 10.) Defendant argues that these findings by the trial court are the statutory requirements for a finding of unfitness and, therefore, the trial court should have found defendant was unfit to stand trial. In addition, defendant argues the court improperly relied on hearsay evidence for its conclusion that defendant was able but unwilling to cooperate with counsel.

After he was indicted, defendant submitted to numerous court-ordered examinations by psychiatrists and clinical psychologists regarding his fitness to stand trial. (111. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 104 — 10.) These examinations resulted in conflicting opinions regarding the defendant’s mental condition and his ability to cooperate with his trial counsel. Based on the opinion of Dr. Robert Reifman of the Psychiatric Institute, defendant filed a motion for a fitness hearing on April 30, 1985. However, on August 20, 1985, this motion was withdrawn after Dr. Reifman changed his diagnosis based upon an examination of defendant conducted on August 16, 1985. Defendant renewed this motion on September 3, 1985, after Dr. Reifman again found defendant unfit to stand trial based upon an examination conducted on August 28,1985.

On September 9, 1985, the trial court conducted a fitness hearing. Although the State had the burden of proving defendant was fit (111. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 104 — 11(c)), for purposes of convenience the fitness hearing began with the testimony of defense witness Dr. Reifman. Dr. Reifman testified that he is a psychiatrist and the director of the Psychiatric Institute of the circuit court of Cook County. Dr. Reifman stated that he examined defendant on five separate occasions regarding his fitness to stand trial. In addition, Reifman reviewed records of the Department of Mental Health relating to defendant’s prior hospitalizations. Dr. Reifman also reviewed reports prepared by Dr. Stipes, Dr. Blumstein, Dr. Cavanaugh, Dr. Garvin and Dr. Rabin. In Dr. Reifman’s opinion, defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic who was “out of contact with reality.” Dr. Reifman testified that defendant understood the charges against him, but that due to his mental illness, he was unable to cooperate with his counsel.

On cross-examination, Dr. Reifman conceded that Dr. Blumstein of the Psychiatric Institute had examined defendant on March 27, 1985. At that time, Dr. Blumstein found that defendant suffered only a personality disorder and that he was able to cooperate with his counsel. Four days later, Dr. Reifman examined defendant and found he was unfit. In addition, on August 28, 1985, Dr. Reifman found defendant unfit even though Dr. Blumstein had found defendant fit on August 16, 1985.

During cross-examination, Dr. Reifman also stated that on two previous occasions he had examined defendant and found him fit for trial. Dr. Reifman explained that because defendant’s condition fluctuates tie misdiagnosed defendant on those occasions that he found defendant was fit for trial.

The State called Dr. James Cavanaugh, a psychiatrist from the Isaac Ray Center. Dr. Cavanaugh stated that he examined defendant in May 1985, on June 3, 1985, and on September 9, 1985. Dr. Cavanaugh testified that defendant was oriented and cooperative during Dr. Cavanaugh’s conversations with him. Dr. Cavanaugh testified that defendant had a personality disorder, but that he did not suffer from a mental disease or defect. Dr. Cavanaugh further testified that defendant could understand the charges against him and was capable of cooperating with his counsel. Dr. Cavanaugh based his opinion on his own examinations of defendant, the results of a competency screening test and a Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) test. In addition, Dr. Cavanaugh relied on a report prepared in 1983 by Dr. Stipes of the Psychiatric Institute, who examined defendant to determine his fitness for trial on an unrelated offense. Dr. Stipes’ report concluded that defendant was able to cooperate with counsel in 1983, but that defendant was unwilling to do so. Dr. Cavanaugh testified that based on his evaluation of defendant he agreed with Dr. Stipes’ findings that defendant was capable of cooperating with his counsel, but that defendant may have chosen not to do so.

Dr. Orest Wasyliw, the senior clinical psychologist at the Isaac Ray Institute, testified for the State. Dr. Wasyliw examined defendant in June 1985 and administered the MMPI test. Based on the results of this test and his interview of defendant, Dr. Wasyliw found no evidence of any thought disorder which would affect defendant’s ability to cooperate with his counsel.

Dr. Michael Rabin, a clinical psychologist, then testified for the defense. Dr. Rabin examined defendant on September 6, 1985, at which time Dr. Rabin conducted a clinical interview and administered the MMPI, the Thematic Aperception Test and the Rorschach ink blot test. Based on his examination, defendant’s hospital records and the reports of Dr. Wasyliw’s examination, Dr. Rabin diagnosed defendant as having a schizo-affeetive disorder. Dr. Rabin testified that defendant has “paranoid compulsive problems as well and he uses those as defenses to mask his psychoses.” Dr. Rabin concluded that defendant could understand the proceedings but that he was unable to cooperate with counsel.

At the conclusion of the fitness hearing, the trial judge made the following ruling:

“I have listened to the evidence, it is conflicting but one thing is clear, Mr. Scott does suffer from a mental disease or a mental defect. The question that remains to be resolved is the cause of the mental disease or defect. He’s unable to cooperate with his own counsel. The Court feels that there is no cooperation based upon this evidence it is thought that Mr. Scott does not wish to cooperate. Therefore he does not meet the legal requirement for unfitness on the basis of non-cooperation. The Court finds him fit.”

Defendant now argues that the court improperly considered a nonstatutory factor when it found defendant fit. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court should not have considered his willingness to cooperate with counsel because the court had already found defendant was unable to cooperate.

The State argues that the above ruling contained in the record is merely a typographical error, and that the trial court actually found defendant was “able to cooperate with his own counsel.” In response to the State’s argument, defendant filed in this court a motion to strike this argument from the State’s brief, which motion was taken with the case. Attached to defendant’s motion is an affidavit from the official court reporter who was present for the fitness hearing. In the affidavit, the court reporter states that she reviewed her notes from September 9, 1985, and that her review of those notes shows the trial court’s ruling is accurately recorded in the common law record. Based on this affidavit, we find that the common law record accurately reflects the trial court’s comments at the fitness hearing, and thus we grant the motion.

Nonetheless, reading the trial court’s ruling in its entirety, we believe the trial court found that defendant’s lack of cooperation was due entirely to his unwillingness to cooperate rather than an inability to do so. Despite the court’s obvious statement that defendant is “unable to cooperate with his own counsel,” we believe the court found he was capable of such cooperation. In the very next sentence, the court states that there is no cooperation and that “based upon this evidence it is thought that Mr. Scott does not wish to cooperate.” When read in context, the court’s comments indicate that it found defendant was not cooperating with counsel, but that this lack of cooperation was due to his unwillingness rather than his inability to do so.

Defendant also claims that Dr. Stipes’ 1983 report was improperly admitted as substantive evidence at the fitness hearing, and that the trial court relied exclusively on this hearsay evidence for its ruling that defendant was able but unwilling to cooperate. Both of these arguments are without merit. We note that defendant initially introduced Dr. Stipes’ report during his direct examination of Dr. Reifman. Consequently, defendant may not now complain that this evidence should not have been admitted. Further, we note that Dr. Cavanaugh specifically testified that based on his own examination of defendant, as well as his review of Dr. Stipes’ report, he believed defendant could cooperate with counsel if he chose to do so. Thus, Dr. Cavanaugh’s testimony provided sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could support its finding.

IV

Defendant next argues that post-arrest statements he made to various police officers and Assistant State’s Attorney Snow should have been suppressed. Defendant argues that the statements were taken in violation of his rights under the fifth amendment and Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602. Specifically, defendant maintains that because he did not understand his Miranda rights he could not make a valid waiver of these rights and, therefore, the statements must be suppressed.

Under Federal law, a valid waiver of Miranda rights has two distinct elements. First, the decision to relinquish the right “ ‘must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.’ ” (Colorado v. Spring (1987), 479 U.S. 564, 573, 93 L. Ed. 2d 954, 965, 107 S. Ct. 851, 857, quoting Moran v. Burbine (1986), 475 U.S. 412, 421, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410, 421, 106 S. Ct. 1135, 1141.) In addition to these Federal voluntariness principles, a confession must also be voluntary in a State-law sense. People v. Bernasco (1990), 138 Ill. 2d 349, 365.

Whether a valid waiver has been made is a question of fact which must be determined by the totality of the circumstances, including the characteristics of the defendant and the details of the interrogation. (People v. Simmons (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 173, 179.) Initially, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his fifth amendment rights. (Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602; Colorado v. Connelly (1986), 479 U.S. 157, 93 L. Ed. 2d 473, 107 S. Ct. 515.) However, “[o]nce the State has established its prima facie case, the burden shifts to defendant to show that his waiver was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary.” People v. Reid (1990), 136 Ill. 2d 27, 51.

In this case, defendant does not argue that his statements were coerced by the police or that he was not informed of his Miranda rights. Rather, defendant maintains that due to the combination of his low IQ and his mental illness he was unable to understand the nature of his rights and the consequences of abandoning those rights. Therefore, defendant argues he was incapable of making a knowing and intelligent waiver of those rights under Simmons, 60 Ill. 2d 173.

In Simmons, this court stated:

“ ‘The purpose of advising an accused of his rights is to enable him to make an intelligent decision, and to understand the consequences of that decision, and the fact that the advice was iterated and reiterated, and that he said he understood it, is of little consequence unless the defendant was possessed of the intelligence to understand the admonition. ***

This court has long recognized that the mental capacity of a defendant must be taken into consideration in determining whether his actions were voluntary (People v. Klyczek, 307 Ill. 150, 155) and while mental deficiency, of itself, does not render a confession involuntary (People v. Hester, 39 Ill. 2d 489) it is a factor which must be considered in the totality of the circumstances under which the right to counsel was waived or a statement or confession made. [Citations.]’ ” Simmons, 60 Ill. 2d at 180, quoting People v. Turner (1973), 56 Ill. 2d 201, 205-06.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the State called Detectives O’Leary, Elmore, Sappanos and Paul as well as Assistant State’s Attorney Snow. Each witness testified that he either personally administered Miranda warnings to defendant or was present when someone else administered the warnings. Each witness stated that defendant said he understood these rights and that defendant gave responsive answers to questions.

Dr. Leonard Koziol, a psychologist, testified that defendant could not understand the term “waive.” Dr. Koziol examined defendant on December 30, 1985, to determine his ability to give a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights. Dr. Koziol conducted a clinical interview of defendant and administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence test. According to the Wechsler test, defendant has an IQ of 75, which places him in the bottom 5% of the population. In addition to the Wechsler test, Dr. Koziol administered the Neuropsychological Screening Battery, Rorschach ink blot test, Thematic Aperception Test and the Rotter Sentence Completion test. Dr. Koziol also reviewed the police reports of defendant’s arrest, the transcript of the hearing on defendant’s motion to quash arrest and defendant’s statement to Assistant State’s Attorney Snow. Dr. Koziol diagnosed defendant as suffering from schizophrenia, which in combination with his low IQ rendered him unable to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights.

On rebuttal the State called Dr. Cavanaugh, who examined defendant on January 23, 1986, to determine whether defendant could make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights. In addition to the material Dr. Cavanaugh relied on for his fitness determination, he reviewed defendant’s statement, police reports from the case and interviews with Detective Sappanos and Assistant State’s Attorney Snow. Based on this information, Dr. Cavanaugh testified that defendant was capable of making a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights.

A trial court’s decision on the issue of voluntariness of a confession “will not be disturbed on review unless found to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” (People v. Aldridge (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 87, 93.) In this case, the trial court heard extensive evidence regarding defendant’s mental condition and intelligence level. In addition, the court heard more such evidence at the fitness hearing. The court found that the evidence of defendant’s mental state and erratic behavior, both during and after his arrest, did not vitiate the voluntariness of his confession. Based on the record before us, we cannot say this ruling is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

V

Defendant next contends the court improperly sustained the State’s objection to the form of a voir dire question proposed by defendant. Although voir dire was conducted by counsel, initially the trial court intended to conduct the voir dire itself. Consequently, defendant submitted a list of proposed questions to the court. The trial court sustained the State’s objection to the question at issue which read, “Do you have any feelings or viewpoint concerning the defense of insanity in a criminal case? If so, what?” This question was specifically approved by this court in People v. Stack (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 301. Therefore, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow defendant to put this question to the venire.

In Stack, this court considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to ask this question on voir dire. Due to the controversial nature of the insanity defense, this court held that the question should have been put to the venire. (Stack, 112 Ill. 2d 301.) This court analogized the proposed question with inquiries regarding prospective jurors’ beliefs about imposition of the death penalty. This court stated:

“[T]he jury was going to be asked to apply an extraordinarily controversial legal requirement against which many members of the community may have been prejudiced. Inquiry into the feeling or viewpoint of the venire regarding such controversial legal propositions is consistent with a bona fide examination conducted so that the parties can intelligently exercise their prerogatives to challenge.” (Stack, 112 Ill. 2d at 312.)

This court further stated that in cases involving the insanity defense, a defendant’s right to an impartial jury is not adequately protected by a general question regarding whether the prospective jurors would follow the court’s instructions on the law. Rather, to fully protect a defendant’s rights, some inquiry into the proposed juror’s views on the insanity defense in particular is required.

Defendant now argues that because the trial court precluded him from asking the proposed question, he was deprived of the means with which to select an impartial jury. We disagree. The court in Stack did not state that all defendants who wish to present an insanity defense must be permitted to ask this precise question. Rather, the court held that the defendant must be allowed to “identify and challenge those prospective jurors who would refuse to follow the statutory law of the insanity defense” (Stack, 112 Ill. 2d at 313), through an examination of each venire member’s attitudes toward that controversial defense. The exact phrasing of the voir dire question is not as important as the opportunity to obtain meaningful information regarding any preconceptions the venire members might have on the issue of the insanity defense.

Unlike Stack, in the present case the voir dire was not limited to general questions about whether the jurors would follow the court’s instructions. Although the court disallowed the above-quoted question, the court did allow defendant to canvas the venire members’ views regarding the insanity defense. For example, defendant was allowed to ask the following questions during voir dire:

“[K]nowing the serious nature of the charges do you think the fact that you are going to hear such things and see some very unpleasant things, would you, nonetheless, be able to consider a defense of insanity in this case and nonetheless be able to vote for it if you were satisfied Larry Scott was insane at the time of this act?

***

*** [A]s a legal concept a person who is accused of a crime may not be responsible if, because of a mental illness or disease, he is unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, that is, he is unable, because of his disease, to do right instead of wrong.

Do all four of you agree with that concept?

***

Do you believe that a person who commits a crime can commit it while insane?

***

*** [If] you find Larry Scott committed the crime while insane would you have any difficulty in returning a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity?”

Questions similar to these were put to each prospective juror. We believe these questions were sufficient to allow defendant to uncover any biases against the insanity defense. Therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding defendant from asking the specific question allowed by this court in Stack.

VI

At trial defendant conceded that he killed the victim, but he relied on the affirmative defense of insanity. Defendant further limited the issues by conceding that he understood the criminality of his acts. Therefore, the only issues at trial were whether defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time he committed the acts, and whether defendant could conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

Carolyn Kent, the victim’s mother, testified that the victim was a student at the Moody Bible Institute and that she was studying to be a missionary in the inner city. Fred Peavy, a co-worker of the victim, testified that the victim left her job at the East Bank Health Club at approximately 9 o’clock on the night of the murder. Peavy also testified that it was approximately a 20-min-ute walk from the East Bank Club to the Moody Bible Institute.

Sarah Buschbaum identified defendant as the man who followed her on the night of August 4, 1984, in the vicinity of the Moody Bible Institute. The details of Buschbaum’s testimony are described above.

Clifton Wright testified that on the evening of August 7, 1984, he was arrested and placed in a holding cell at the 18th district police station. While in the lockup, Wright met defendant. Defendant stated he had been arrested for murdering the “girl from the newspaper article” and that the guy he was with got the money. Wright also said defendant was masturbating in the lockup as he told Wright about the murder.

Numerous police officers and detectives testified to the details of the arrest and investigation. They also testified that defendant gave responsive answers to questions and that he appeared oriented to time and place. Assistant State’s Attorney Snow testified that defendant gave a statement and that he appeared coherent and alert at the time he gave the statement. The statement was then published to the jury without objection.

Dr. Alan Rosenwald, a clinical psychologist, testified for the defense. Dr. Rosenwald examined defendant on December 29, 1985, to determine defendant’s sanity at the time of the crime. Dr. Rosenwald interviewed defendant for approximately 20 minutes, administered the Rorschach ink blot test, Wechsler Adult IQ test, Bender Gestalt test and the Projective Sentence Completion test. In addition to the tests he personally administered, Dr. Rosenwald reviewed defendant’s mental history and reports prepared by other psychologists. Based on the above information, Dr. Rosenwald concluded that defendant was a schizophrenic with borderline defective intelligence. Dr. Rosenwald explained that schizophrenia is a psychosis which impairs the “reality testing” ability of those afflicted with the illness.

Dr. Rosenwald testified that although defendant was aware that his acts were criminal, due to his schizophrenia he was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the crime. Dr. Rosenwald stated that due to defendant’s misinterpretation of the events around him, he would be unable to control his actions based on his own “internal controls.” Dr. Rosenwald stated that if some form of external control were present, defendant would be more able conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Dr. Rosenwald explained that “external control” refers to the ability to adapt one’s thinking to some authority outside of one’s self. Dr. Rosenwald testified that defendant could control his actions when he followed Buschbaum and the unidentified woman on August 7, because of the external controls present in the form of the doorman and police officers respectively. However, due to defendant’s lack of internal controls, defendant could not conform his acts to the requirements of the law at the time he assaulted the victim. Dr. Rosenwald testified that defendant’s act of hiding the victim’s body shows that he understood the criminality of the act, but does not mean he could conform his acts to the requirements of the law.

On cross-examination, Dr. Rosenwald stated that he was aware that defendant had been examined at Cermak Hospital, but that he could not recall whether he had reviewed the records from those examinations. After a defense objection, the court took an overnight recess, during which time Dr. Rosenwald reviewed the “Cermak reports.” Upon further cross-examination, Dr. Rosenwald testified that a notation in the Cermak reports dated September 5, 1984, indicated that defendant had a personality disorder, which is not a mental illness.

On redirect, Dr. Rosenwald stated that the Cermak reports were “progress notes” which were not necessarily based on comprehensive psychological examinations. Dr. Rosenwald also stated that he had reviewed psychological reports prepared by Dr. Garvin in 1983 and 1984. In the 1983 report, Garvin diagnosed defendant as a “social pathological] individual with [a] psychotic underlay.” The 1984 report was an “interim report” which referred to the 1983 report, but did not mention the “psychotic underlay.”

Dr. Koziol testified for the defense that he examined defendant on December 30, 1985, to determine whether he was capable of making an intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights. Based on this examination, which is described above, Dr. Koziol diagnosed defendant as suffering from chronic schizophrenia with acute exacerbation and delusions. Dr. Koziol stated that although the projective tests which he administered to defendant showed that defendant was psychotic, defendant was capable of goal-directed behavior. However, Dr. Koziol said that defendant’s goals would be abnormal.

Although the projective tests did not indicate that defendant had delusions, during the clinical interview Dr. Koziol discovered that defendant had delusions regarding race. Specifically, defendant believed that when he talked to Caucasians, they developed earaches and hives and later became prejudiced. In addition, defendant believed the victim was black and Puerto Rican when, in fact, she was white.

During cross-examination, Dr. Koziol stated that defendant had told him that defendant’s prior stays in mental hospitals were due to drug abuse. Defendant told Dr. Koziol that he was abusing “Ts and Blues,” but Dr. Koziol did not inquire about the frequency of defendant’s drug use.

Dr. Koziol also stated on cross-examination that he was unaware that defendant had been examined at the Cermak Hospital. In addition, Dr. Koziol was unaware that in August 1984, Dr. Garvin diagnosed defendant as having an antisocial personality disorder with a history of drug abuse. Dr. Garvin found no psychosis. Dr. Koziol stated that he based his opinion solely on his own examination of defendant and that he did not review the reports prepared by Doctors Rosenwald and Wasyliw. Dr. Koziol stated that defendant lacked internal controls, but that he could respond to external controls.

Dr. Glenn Prentice, a psychiatrist, testified for the defense. Dr. Prentice examined defendant in December 1985, at which time he conducted a clinical interview, and reviewed the reports from defendant’s prior arrests and hospitalizations. Based on his examination and review of the medical records, Dr. Prentice diagnosed defendant as suffering from schizophrenia and delusions. Dr. Prentice stated defendant has been schizophrenic since at least 1979, when he was hospitalized with that diagnosis.

Dr. Prentice found that defendant suffered from delusions regarding a “women’s labor pool.” Dr. Prentice stated that defendant’s delusions regarding women indicated that he felt women held unusual power and were malicious in some way. Dr. Prentice stated that defendant might conceal his delusional belief system. However, Dr. Prentice also testified that defendant had a history of acting out against women. For example, in 1982 defendant robbed a woman and in 1983 he molested three women.

In explaining his diagnosis that defendant was schizophrenic since at least 1979, Dr. Prentice read extensively from the records of defendant’s prior hospitalizations. Dr. Prentice believed these records indicate defendant was hospitalized for schizophrenia and not drug abuse. To support his diagnosis, Dr. Prentice also relied on notations from the Cermak reports indicating symptoms of schizophrenia.

Dr. Prentice stated that defendant was schizophrenic on August 4, 1984. While Dr. Prentice believed defendant understood the criminality of his acts, defendant could not conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Dr. Prentice stated that the circumstances surrounding defendant’s arrest indicate that defendant could control his conduct when some form of external control was exerted but that he could not control his acts when he was alone with a woman.

On cross-examination, Dr. Prentice conceded that although defendant mentioned other delusions to different doctors, he never mentioned the “women’s labor pool” to another doctor. Nor did defendant mention any of his delusions during his statement to Assistant State’s Attorney Snow on August 8, 1984. Dr. Prentice also stated he did not discuss the facts of the case with defendant.

On cross-examination, the State asked Dr. Prentice whether he was aware that defendant beat his wife and forced her to engage in oral and anal sex with him. Dr. Prentice stated he was not aware of this behavior, but later on redirect he stated this behavior would be consistent with his diagnosis.

Dr. Prentice was aware that some notations from defendant’s 1980 stay in a Department of Mental Health hospital indicate defendant may have been faking hallucinations at that time. Dr. Prentice was not aware that defendant told other doctors that his previous hospital stays were due to his drug abuse. However, when defendant was discharged from the hospital on November 12, 1980, he was diagnosed as having schizo-effective disorder.

Dr. Prentice may not have been aware that shortly prior to killing the victim defendant followed Buschbaum. Dr. Prentice stated that this shows defendant had purposeful behavior and that at least to some extent he was in control of his actions. On redirect, he stated that at the time defendant followed Buschbaum the doorman exerted external control over defendant.

The State called Dr. Cavanaugh as a rebuttal witness. Dr. Cavanaugh conducted clinical interviews of defendant on May 9, June 3, arid June 9, 1985, regarding defendant’s fitness to stand trial; and February 20, February 27, March 17 and March 24, 1986, regarding defendant’s mental state at the time of the crimes. In addition, on January 23, 1986, Dr. Cavanaugh examined defendant to determine his competency to waive his fifth amendment rights. These interviews lasted a total of approximately eight hours.

In addition to his personal interviews of defendant, Dr. Cavanaugh interviewed defendant’s ex-wife, Detective Sappanos and Assistant State’s Attorney Snow. Dr. Cavanaugh also reviewed the reports of other doctors from the Isaac Ray Institute who had interviewed defendant’s mother and Sarah Buschbaum. Dr. Cavanaugh also reviewed the Department of Mental Health records from defendant’s prior hospital stays and the Cermak reports from the psychological screening conducted at the Cook County jail.

Dr. Cavanaugh stated that on August 4, 1984, defendant had symptoms of both a sociopathic personality disorder and a schizoid personality disorder. Dr. Cavanaugh stated that defendant’s sociopathic personality disorder was evidenced by his drug abuse, theft, sexually abusive behavior, problems maintaining meaningful relationships and problems maintaining a job over an extended period. A person with a schizoid personality disorder has no major thought disorder, but has difficulty relating with others. Neither of these personality disorders is a mental disease or defect as those terms are used in the insanity statute. In addition to the personality disorders, Dr. Cavanaugh diagnosed defendant as a sexual sadist.

Dr. Cavanaugh testified that according to defendant’s ex-wife, defendant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. Defendant’s former wife also told the interviewing doctors that defendant had beaten his former wife and forced her to engage in oral and anal sex with him. Dr. Cavanaugh stated this indicates defendant was a sexual sadist.

Despite the diagnoses that at the time of his prior hospitalizations defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic, Dr. Cavanaugh stated that defendant’s hospitalizations were probably due to drug abuse. Dr. Cavanaugh stated that he does not agree with the diagnoses of schizophrenia made at the time of the hospitalizations.

Dr. Cavanaugh stated that in his opinion the issue is whether defendant could control his impulses or whether he was irresistibly driven to commit the crime. Dr. Cavanaugh further said there is no such thing as ah external impulse control. Dr. Cavanaugh stated that defendant’s conduct in following Buschbaum combined with the facts that the attack occurred in a dark alley and that defendant hid the body indicate he was able to control his acts at the time of the offense. Similarly, according to Dr. Cavanaugh, defendant’s conduct of following the unidentified woman at the time of his arrest indicates he could control his acts. Finally, Dr. Cavanaugh stated that he found no evidence that defendant was psychotic. In addition, he stated that people do not rape as a by-product of psychosis.

Dr. Wayne Tuteur, a psychiatrist, testified for the State. Dr. Tuteur examined defendant on February 15 and 22, 1986, to determine defendant’s sanity at the time of the offenses. In the course of his examination, Dr. Tuteur reviewed the police reports, defendant’s statement, records from defendant’s hospitalizations with the Department of Mental Health, the Cermak reports and records from the Psychiatric Institute relating to examinations of defendant conducted in 1983, 1984 and 1985.

Dr. Tuteur stated that defendant was not mentally ill at the time of the offenses and that he was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Dr. Tuteur stated that defendant’s behavior towards Buschbaum indicates that he was looking for female companionship and was capable of controlling his conduct.

On cross-examination, Dr. Tuteur stated that he was aware that defendant had been hospitalized four times between 1979 and 1981 and that each time defendant was discharged with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. In addition, Dr. Tuteur was aware of reports prepared in 1983 by Dr. Stipes and Dr. Garvin which found defendant was schizophrenic. Based on his own examination of defendant, Dr. Tuteur disagreed with any diagnosis finding defendant is or was schizophrenic. Dr. Tuteur relied on the Cermak reports for his diagnosis that defendant had only a personality disorder, even though some notations in the Cermak reports show defendant had some symptoms of schizophrenia. Dr. Tuteur also disagreed with Dr. Reifman’s opinion that defendant was schizophrenic, “since on other occasions Dr. Reifman has other diagnoses and found him fit and sane.”

On redirect examination, Dr. Tuteur stated that civil commitment procedures could be instituted against a psychotic individual who signs himself out of a mental hospital.

Defendant called Dr. Michael Rabin, a clinical psychologist with the Psychiatric Institute, as a surrebuttal witness. Dr. Rabin examined defendant on September 24, 1985, to determine defendant’s fitness for trial. During his examination of defendant, Dr. Rabin administered the Rorschach test, Thematic Aperception Test and MMPI. Defendant was uncooperative at first, but later improved in this area. Based on his examination of defendant, Dr. Rabin diagnosed defendant as suffering from schizo-effective disorder, which is a combination of manic depression and schizophrenia.

Defendant attempted to have Dr. Rabin explain defendant’s answers to 10 Rorschach cards. However, without State objection, the court refused to allow defendant to introduce all 10 cards. Instead, defendant had Dr. Rabin explain in detail defendant’s responses to two Rorschach cards which most show defendant’s psychosis. Dr. Rabin stated that defendant’s answers indicated that he had poor impulse control.

Dr. Rabin reviewed a report prepared by Dr. Wasyliw regarding the MMPI administered by the latter. Dr. Wasyliw concluded that defendant had no pathology, but Dr. Rabin’s own MMPI showed a clear pathology.

Dr. Rabin reviewed a report prepared by Dr. Garvin in 1983. During his direct testimony, Dr. Rabin read the following portion of Dr. Garvin’s report:

“Patient is basically a primitive impulse ridden, streetwise sociopathic individual with a psychotic underlay. He is unstable and has a strong need to provoke. There is probably sufficient underlying delusional material to regard him as a residual schizophrenic, but his essential sociopathy is even more prominent. Seen as fit for trial if he chooses to cooperate with counsel. No evidence of insanity at the time.”

Dr. Rabin then stated that in his opinion, defendant was underdiagnosed in 1983 by Dr. Garvin.

On cross-examination, Dr. Rabin stated that he was aware Dr. Wasyliw had administered some of the same tests and concluded defendant was not psychotic. Dr. Rabin also testified that defendant began cooperating after Dr. Reifman reminded him that his lawyers had sent him to see Dr. Rabin. Defendant’s answers to Dr. Rabin’s questions during the clinical interview showed no signs of psychotic thinking. Dr. Rabin had no opinion about whether defendant was insane at the time of the offense.

Defendant’s last witness on surrebuttal was Dr. Reifman. Dr. Reifman testified to the various tests and diagnoses described above in relation to the fitness hearing. Dr. Reifman explained that his diagnosis changed because defendant’s mental state fluctuates and because, defendant masks his psychosis when he is under stress. Dr. Reifman asked Dr. Rabin to administer psychological tests, and later Dr. Reifman reviewed the results of those tests.

Dr. Reifman concluded that defendant was schizophrenic on August 4, 1984, but he had no opinion about whether defendant could conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Dr. Reifman agreed that defendant is sadistic, but stated that the sadism is a function of his psychosis, and not a primary diagnosis.

On cross-examination, Dr. Reifman testified that he had previously found defendant to be suffering only from a personality disorder. Dr. Reifman also stated that he is not aware that defendant ever repeated the delusional statements to other doctors. Finally, Dr. Reifman stated that he had no opinion about whether defendant was insane on August 4,1984.

VII

Defendant raises a series of arguments related to the State’s use of the Cermak reports. As stated above, the Cermak reports are the patient progress notes prepared while defendant was at the Cermak Hospital, which is affiliated with the Cook County jail. Although defendant initially objected to the use of the reports on the grounds that the reports were not produced during discovery, that objection was later withdrawn. Nevertheless, defendant now contends that the prosecution’s use of these reports was improper.

Initially, we note that the contents of the Cermak reports may be admitted for the limited purpose of explaining the basis of the expert witnesses' opinions. (Fed. R Evid. 703; People v. Anderson (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 1.) Under Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “expert witnesses may disclose the contents of otherwise inadmissible materials upon which they reasonably rely.” (Anderson, 113 Ill. 2d at 8-9, citing Wilson v. Clark (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 186.) Under Federal Rule 703 the ordinary foundation requirements are replaced by a showing that the information is of a type upon which experts in the field reasonably rely.

Defendant asserts that the Cermak reports were not reasonably reliable because it is unclear who examined the defendant, how long the examinations lasted or what the exams entailed. In response, the State observes that the same objections apply to the records from defendant’s prior hospitalizations. Defendant also notes that at least two of the notations in the Cermak reports were made by student interns. Based on these facts, defendant argues that the Cermak reports were inherently unreliable. However, defendant did not object to the use of these reports at trial. If, as defendant argues, the reports are unreliable, he should have objected on this ground when the reports were first discussed at trial. Instead, defendant elicited testimony from his own experts that the Cermak reports supported their findings that defendant was schizophrenic. Thus, defendant has waived review of this claim. Further, the use of the Cermak reports does not constitute plain error. While the experts disagreed as to the meaning of the Cermak reports and the weight to be accorded them, no expert testified that the reports were so untrustworthy that they could not reasonably be relied upon in the formation of a psychiatric opinion.

Testimony at trial established that prior psychiatric history is an important tool in making a diagnosis as to defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense. Indeed, the defendant relied heavily upon the records from his prior hospitalizations to show that he had a long history of schizophrenia. Similarly, State witnesses Dr. Cavanaugh and Dr. Tuteur, as well as defense expert Dr. Prentice, testified that they relied on the Cermak reports in making their diagnoses. The fact that three separate experts, including defense expert Dr. Prentice, relied on the Cermak reports in reaching their opinions shows that these records are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. Therefore, the contents of the reports could be disclosed for the limited purpose of showing the bases of these experts’ opinions, even though the reports were not entered into evidence.

Nevertheless, defendant argues that it was improper to use the Cermak reports to impeach the testimony of Dr. Rosenwald and Dr. Koziol. Defendant asserts that neither of these doctors had reviewed the reports prior to testifying, and that neither doctor relied on the reports to form his opinion. Therefore, defendant maintains it was error for the State to cross-examine these doctors about the contents of the Cermak reports. We disagree.

Initially, we note that Dr. Rosenwald reviewed the Cermak reports during a court recess. Even if Dr. Rosenwald had not relied on these reports prior to his direct testimony, he was aware of the reports when he testified as to his opinion on cross-examination. Further, the State did not use the cross-examinations to elicit information which could not otherwise come before the jury. (See Graham, Expert Witness Testimony and the Federal Rules of Evidence: Insuring Adequate Assurance of Trustworthiness, 1986 U. Ill. L. Rev. 43, 70.) The contents of the reports were properly brought out during the direct examination of the State’s own experts. Given that the reports are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, we believe it was proper for the State to inquire as to what weight, if any, the defense experts accorded the reports.

Defendant next asserts that the State erred by arguing the substantive truth of the Cermak reports, as well as other evidence which was admissible for the limited purpose of showing the basis for an expert’s opinion. Specifically, defendant assigns error to the State’s arguments relating to the Cermak reports, defendant’s mistreatment of his former wife, defendant’s history of substance abuse and defendant’s alleged malingering during his prior stay in the Department of Mental Health hospital. Defendant argues that this evidence was admissible, if at all, only as the basis for an expert’s opinion. Defendant further argues that by arguing the substantive truth of this evidence the State deprived defendant of a fair trial.

This evidence was properly admissible for the limited purpose of explaining the basis for an expert’s opinion. (Anderson, 113 Ill. 2d 1; Clark, 84 Ill. 2d 186.) Ordinarily a limiting instruction is the proper remedy when evidence is admitted for only a limited purpose and defendant would have been entitled to such an instruction upon request. (Fed. R Evid. 105; People v. Garza (1981), 92 Ill. App. 3d 723, 733.) However, not only did defendant not request a limiting instruction, but he also argued this type of evidence substantively. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the court’s failure to sua sponte inform the jury that this type of evidence was admissible only to show the bases of the experts’ opinions.

Defendant next argues that statements he made to Dr. Tuteur and Dr. Cavanaugh during court-ordered psychiatric examinations should have been suppressed. Defendant contends the trial court erred by not advising defendant that statements he made during these examinations could only be used as evidence on the issue of insanity, that he had a right to refuse to cooperate with the examining psychiatrists, but that if he did not cooperate he could not present expert testimony for the insanity defense if that testimony was based on the expert’s examination of defendant. (111. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 104 — 14.) The statute on which defendant relies applies only to court-ordered fitness examinations. The statute which applies to court-ordered insanity examinations does not require admonishments from the court. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 115 — 6.

Because defendant did not raise this issue in the trial court, or include it in a timely filed post-trial motion, it is not clear from the record which statements were made by defendant during each particular interview. Therefore, defendant has waived appellate review of this issue. Further, because defendant cannot show any harm resulting from the court’s failure to provide the admonishments, the error did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

Dr. Tuteur examined defendant after the court had already held a fitness hearing, and the examinations were for the purpose of determining defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense. The statements to Dr. Cavanaugh were made during eight interviews with the defendant. Four of these interviews with Dr. Cavanaugh were for the purpose of determining defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense, three were for the purpose of determining defendant’s fitness to stand trial and one was for the purpose of determining his competency to waive his constitutional rights. Therefore, the court had no statutory duty to advise defendant of his rights prior to the interviews by Dr. Tuteur and five of the eight interviews by Dr. Cavanaugh. In addition, the United States Supreme Court has held that compulsory psychiatric examinations do not violate the fifth or sixth amendment when a defendant places his mental state at issue. (Buchanan v. Kentucky (1987), 483 U.S. 402, 424, 97 L. Ed. 2d 336, 356, 107 S. Ct. 2906, 2918; see People v. Gacy (1988), 125 Ill. 2d 117, 143.) Therefore, there is no error with respect to the court-ordered insanity examinations.

With respect to the fitness interviews, defendant is correct that the trial court should have admonished defendant of his rights. Given this error, defendant had two possible options. First, defendant could have moved the trial court to suppress the statements defendant made during these interviews. Under this option, defendant would not have