People v. Patterson (154 Ill. 2d 414, 1992)

JUSTICE FREEMAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Aaron Patterson, was indicted, along with codefendant Eric Caine, for the murders of Vincent and Rafaela Sanchez, occurring during commission of a forcible felony (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 9 — 1(a)(3)). Following a double jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant was found guilty and convicted. The trial proceeded to the death penalty phase, and the same jury found defendant eligible for the death penalty based on two aggravating factors, conviction of murdering two persons and killing in the course of another felony (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, pars. 9 — 1(b)(3), (b)(6)). The jury determined that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude the imposition of the death penalty and the trial court sentenced defendant to death. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 9 — 1(g).) The death sentence was stayed (134 Ill. 2d R. 609(a)), pending direct review by this court (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, §4(b); 134 Ill. 2d R. 603). We now affirm the conviction and sentence.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The following facts were adduced at trial. On Saturday, April 19, 1986, Vincent Sanchez, aged 73 years, and Rafaela Sanchez, aged 62 years, were found stabbed to death inside their ransacked home, located at 8849 South Burley Avenue, Chicago. Forensic evidence established that the couple died as a result of multiple stab wounds consistent with infliction by either a hunting or butcher' knife. Their badly decomposed bodies were discovered after Wayne Washington, a 13-year-old youth who routinely performed odd jobs for the couple, alerted neighbors. Washington testified that he noticed that the rear door of the Sanchez residence was open and that the kitchen floor was bloody and so told a neighbor.

When police arrived, they were able to enter the home only by the rear door; the front door was barricaded and had numerous items in front of it. There was no evidence of forced entry. Vincent Sanchez was found lying in the bathroom and Rafaela was found on the dining room floor.

The kitchen, dining and living rooms of the residence were “a ransacked mess” with numerous objects, boxes, and papers strewn about and drawers and cabinets open. A police evidence technician testified that the home contained an excessive amount of used clothing, shoes, radios, etc. The second floor also contained a great deal of used, general merchandise.

A search of the residence by police uncovered four handguns from the bottom of a clothes hamper located in the dining room. Police recovered gun registration documentation for one of the guns from the pocket of Vincent’s pants. Holsters and ammunition were also found in the residence.

Walter Collins, a police crime lab technician, testified concerning prints found at the scene. Collins testified that there were three footwear impressions of blood on the kitchen floor. There was also a single footprint impression of dirt with a minute amount of blood found on the back porch. A fingerprint was found on the exterior of the rear door to the home and a “multiple-type” palm print was found on the exterior of the bathroom door. Other prints were taken from two tape recorders, one of which was found on the back porch.

Rafaela’s sister testified that she had last spoken to Rafaela the Wednesday before the victims’ bodies were discovered. She believed that Vincent occupied his time by reselling items.

Following the police officers’ discovery of the bodies, they questioned Washington. He told police that he saw Eric Caine and “DeEdward” “across from” the Sanchez residence which is located near Washington’s school. Police located DeEdward and brought him to the police station for Washington to identify.

On or about April 21, 1986, police received information that defendant had told Marva Hall, DeEdward’s cousin, that he, not DeEdward, had killed the victims. On April 30, 1986, defendant was found by police hiding in the attic of James Hill’s home. Police were searching for defendant because they had a warrant for his arrest on an unrelated matter. After police found defendant, they transported him to the fourth district police station. Detective James Pienta testified that he had been looking for defendant in connection with the Sanchez murders and had spoken with defendant’s father, a police sergeant. When Pienta learned that defendant was in custody, he and Detective William Harley, his partner, proceeded to the fourth district station and transported defendant to Area Two Violent Crimes headquarters, where he was questioned by the two officers.

According to police, defendant initially denied knowledge of the Sanchez murders. However, following the administration of a polygraph examination and further questioning, defendant admitted the murders to police and assistant State’s Attorneys. Defendant and Caine were subsequently indicted for the murders. Before trial, defendant unsuccessfully moved for the suppression of his statements. Defendant and Caine were thereafter tried together by means of a “double jury” procedure.

TRIAL

At trial, Marva Hall, aged 16 years, testified that on April 20, 1986, she saw defendant in a car with two other persons at 91st Street and Mackinaw Avenue. Hall had known defendant for three or four years and knew him to be a leader in the “Apache Rangers” street gang. According to Hall, defendant showed her a shotgun and a chain saw which were in the car and asked whether she knew anyone who wanted to buy the items. Hall testified that defendant told her that he had obtained the items from the elderly Mexicans who were “next to the old empty lot” and that he had stabbed them to death. Hall further testified that defendant told her that Michael Arbuckle and another person were with him at the time. Defendant also informed Hall that DeEdward, her cousin, had been taken to jail for killing “some white peoples,” but that DeEdward had not killed them, he had. According to Hall, a few hours later, she saw DeEdward on the street. He had been held by police for several hours. The next day, Hall’s mother-in-law called police. Shortly thereafter, Hall related to police what defendant had told her.

Under cross-examination, Hall agreed that when she was interviewed by Isaac Carrothers, a defense investigator, she denied that defendant had told her he committed the murders. Hall also agreed that during the interview with Carrothers, she denied telling the police that defendant committed the murders. According to Hall, she signed a statement to that effect, taken by Carrothers, because defendant had telephoned her from jail on four occasions and threatened to kill her if she appeared in court. Hall admitted, however, that she had never called the -police concerning the threats and she did not tell Carrothers that she had been threatened. According to Hall, she was still afraid of defendant.

Carrothers testified that during the interview with Hall, she had not appeared frightened when signing the statement, nor had she told him of any threats by defendant. Rather, Hall had expressed to Carrothers that she was afraid of police. The trial court denied admission into evidence of Hall’s signed statement taken by Carrothers.

Pienta testified that, after defendant was returned to Area Two following the polygraph examination, he confessed under questioning, relating the following. Before the murders, Caine approached defendant and said that he badly needed guns and assistance “on the street.” Defendant and Caine knew that there were guns at the Sanchez residence and they decided to go there because Caine would be able to gain admittance to the Sanchez home. Defendant and Caine decided not to use a car driven by Caine, but walked down the Illinois Central railroad tracks. Defendant remained by a garage, while Caine went in the residence from the rear. While Caine was inside, defendant heard noise and Caine came running out, carrying a red bag containing a shotgun. They both fled.

According to Pienta, when he asked defendant to elaborate, defendant again related basically the same story, but added that he had been called into the Sanchez home, went in and, when the “old man” was taking too much time for the “good stuff,” defendant had “c[o]me up like-up like a straight up Ninja” and “shanked him.” Defendant then went on to relate that the woman started screaming and yelling, so he “shanked” her, also. Defendant said that “he had her springing everywhere.” At the conclusion of this interview, Pienta went with other officers to locate Caine and he was brought back to Area Two where he was placed in a separate interview room for questioning.

Pienta further testified that during a later interview, in the early hours of the following morning, with Assistant State’s Attorney Kip Owen present, defendant again related basically the same story. Defendant, however, added that he had entered the Sanchez residence armed with a revolver which did not work, but that “the old chump didn’t know that.” Defendant further added that he had obtained a knife from the kitchen and that Caine also had a knife. Defendant related that he had asked the old man for the “good stuff,” but “that chump was too slow in getting it.” Defendant again stated that he “came like a straight up Ninja,” the “old man” was scared, tried to run and he “shanked him.” He again stated as well that the woman started screaming, tried to run and he “shanked her, too.” According to Pienta, defendant stated, more than once, “the bitch” and “I had her going everywhere.” Defendant additionally claimed that Caine was a coward and had tried to stop defendant. Defendant took the knife with him as the two fled from the Sanchez residence and defendant tossed it on the railroad tracks. According to Pienta, defendant described himself as a “Ninja” and the “last apache.” Pienta testified that these two interviews of defendant consisted primarily of defendant’s narrative. Neither of the interviews was tape recorded, nor was a court reporter present.

Assistant State’s Attorney Kip Owen testified that he was present at defendant’s early morning interview. Owen corroborated Pienta’s testimony regarding defendant’s relation of events surrounding the Sanchez murders. Owen testified that defendant stated he “went Ninja” when events were happening in the Sanchez residence. Owen acknowledged that police conducted further investigation following defendant’s statement by looking on the Illinois Central tracks for the knife, which was never found.

Peter Troy, a former assistant State’s Attorney, testified that he interviewed defendant in the presence of Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Lacy and Detective Madigan, during the afternoon of the next day. Troy testified that he explained to defendant both a court reporter procedure and a handwritten procedure for taking statements. Defendant agreed to give a handwritten statement and related the following to Troy.

Defendant, Caine and Michael Arbuckle, “Cochise,” and someone named “Rambo” went on a “mission” to the Sanchez home. They went to the Sanchez home because there were guns and drugs there, which they intended to obtain. Defendant was armed with a .22-cali-ber pistol and a .38-caliber revolver. Defendant initially remained outside the residence, but then went inside when Caine took too long. Caine was asking Mr. Sanchez where the “stuff” was and Sanchez was responding “what stuff” when defendant stabbed Sanchez several times. Mrs. Sanchez began crying. Defendant got tired of her crying, grabbed her as she started to run and stabbed her. According to defendant, Caine left during the stabbing because he was “weak” and a “coward.” Troy testified that defendant read a handwritten version of this statement but, after making several phone calls to family and an attorney, declined to sign it.

Michael Chambliss, an assistant medical examiner, who performed autopsies on the victims’ bodies, testified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology. Chambliss testified that certain stab wounds to the bodies, which he termed “defense wounds,” were consistent with the process of warding off an attacker. Rafaela’s body was in a moderate to severe state of post-mortem decomposition; Vincent’s was in a moderate to advanced state of decomposition.

Police officer Thurman Kluth, a latent fingerprint examiner, testified that both the palmprint located on the exterior bathroom door and the fingerprint on the rear door belonged to Vincent Sanchez. The fingerprint from one of the tape recorders was determined to be neither the victims’, Washington’s, Caine’s nor defendant’s.

Detective William Harley testified for the defense, corroborating Pienta’s testimony that he was present during the early morning interview between defendant and Owen. Harley acknowledged that after defendant gave his statement, Owen had wanted additional investigation done by police.

Carlton Ford testified for the defense, also, that in the latter part of April 1986 he, defendant and Steve Weathersby were driving around in Ford’s mother’s car, trying to sell a power saw which belonged to Weathersby. The three youths wanted to sell the saw in order to obtain money for liquor. According to Ford, there were no shotguns in the car, nor did Ford give the car keys at any time to either Weathersby or defendant or see them put anything in the trunk of the car. Ford testified that he obtained the saw and then picked up the car from his mother. The trio saw Hall around Houston Street and defendant asked her if she knew anyone who would want to buy the saw. Defendant spoke to Hall while seated in Ford’s vehicle and also asked her if she knew whether some other unidentified individual was around. Ford further admitted that he and defendant had been members of the Apache Rangers.

Sharon Haynes, defendant’s former girlfriend, testified that on April 17, 1986, at around 7:15 p.m., she arrived at a friend’s house where defendant was asleep, presumably drunk. Haynes tried to awaken defendant, but could not and so she left the residence to go to a bus stop. When no bus arrived, Haynes returned to the friend’s residence and successfully awakened defendant. Then they went into another room, lay down on a couch and went to sleep for the entire night.

Following closing arguments, the jury found defendant guilty of the murders of Vincent and Rafaela Sanchez. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to death.

DISCUSSION

Defendant raises numerous issues concerning pretrial, trial and sentencing matters.

I

Motion To Suppress Statements and Voluntariness of Defendant’s Confession

Defendant maintains error based upon a denial of a motion to suppress statements. Defendant raises five related issues. We first consider defendant’s contention that the standard of proof establishing a confession as voluntary should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt rather than by a preponderance of the evidence.

This court has consistently held that the State has the burden of establishing the voluntariness of a defendant’s confession, and the applicable standard requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Caballero (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 23, 33: People v. King (1986), 109 Ill. 2d 514, 525; People v. Redd (1990), 135 Ill. 2d 252, 292; see also Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 38, par. 114 — 11, Committee Comments — 1963 (Smith-Hurd 1977); People v. Thomas (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 500, 516.) Defendant argues that a confession has such profound impact on a jury that allowing this standard of proof in a circumstantial evidence case with no eyewitnesses amounts to proof of guilt by a mere preponderance of the evidence. According to defendant, application of this lower burden of proof in determining a confession’s voluntariness, thereby, violates due process. We disagree.

Regardless of the standard of proof, in determining a confession’s voluntariness, the trier of fact must be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on all the evidence. While a confession may be the “ ‘most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted’ ” against a defendant (see Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), 499 U.S. 279, 296, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302, 322, 111 S. Ct. 1246, 1257, quoting Bruton v. United States (1968), 391 U.S. 123, 139, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476, 487, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 1630), it remains, nonetheless, but one piece of evidence in an entire circumstantial evidence case. Thus, we are not prepared to say that in such cases the trier of fact finds guilt based upon merely a preponderance of the evidence. A defendant’s due process rights are not violated by application of this standard of proof to determine the voluntariness of his confession, and we decline to adopt a standard based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant additionally contends that: (1) his confession was coerced and thus its admission violated the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination (U.S. Const., amend. V); (2) the erroneous admission of his confession was not harmless error; (3) the State failed to meet its burden of establishing the voluntariness of his confession because the State did not call all material witnesses to the surrounding circumstances or explain those witnesses’ absence; and (4) the trial court failed to examine the totality of those circumstances because it did not consider evidence of certain written statements which defendant made at the time of his custodial interrogation.

State’s Witnesses’ Testimony

Pienta testified that on April 30, 1986, at around 6:30 p.m., he and Harley transported defendant from the fourth district to Area Two. At the time, the officers spoke to defendant and read him Miranda warnings. Defendant denied knowledge of the murders. Sometime between 7:30 and 9 p.m., the officers took defendant to downtown police headquarters, at 11th and State Streets, for a polygraph examination. After the examination, the officers proceeded to transport defendant back to Area Two and did not speak to him. Defendant, however, told them that he was hungry so they stopped at a McDonald’s to get him food.

Pienta testified that, after they arrived at Area Two, he again read defendant his Miranda warnings and talked with him at around 10 p.m. for about one-half hour to 45 minutes. Harley was also present. According to Pienta, at around 1 a.m., he again spoke with defendant after reading him Miranda warnings for the third time. Harley and Assistant State’s Attorney Owen were present at this interview. Detective William Pederson came in and out of the room during the interview.

According to Pienta, throughout this entire period, defendant never asked for an attorney or his father, nor was he threatened, told that he was lying, subjected to physical abuse or made to drink alcohol. Pienta denied that officers placed a plastic bag over defendant’s head or slapped another person in defendant’s presence. Under cross-examination, Pienta acknowledged that the supplemental police report which he had prepared concerning defendant’s questioning did not reflect each instance that defendant received Miranda warnings.

Detective William Harley testified, essentially confirming the testimony of Pienta. Harley also testified that defendant never requested an attorney during a later interview concerning a separate offense as well as during his several interviews concerning the subject offense. During cross-examination, it was revealed that Detective Pederson had accompanied Harley and Pienta when they had first transported defendant from the fourth district station to Area Two.

Detective Pederson testified confirming Pienta’s testimony that he was not present during the entire interview of the defendant at 1 a.m., but went in and out of the interview room. Pederson also confirmed the prior testimony of Pienta and Harley to the effect that defendant was not abused or threatened.

Detective Daniel McWeeny testified that at about 5:15 a.m. on May 1, 1986, he and Owen interviewed defendant at Area Two about an unrelated case. Owen gave defendant Miranda warnings and then both McWeeny and Owen spoke with him for approximately 15 minutes. Defendant was not handcuffed. Neither did defendant ask to speak with an attorney. McWeeny essentially confirmed Pienta’s testimony that defendant was not threatened, accused of lying, given alcohol to drink, or made to suffer a plastic bag being placed over his head while the lights were turned off.

Sergeant Raymond Madigan also testified. Madigan related that during the afternoon of May 1, 1986, at approximately 2:45 p.m., he was present with two assistant State’s Attorneys and defendant in an interview room at Area Two. One of the two attorneys gave defendant his Miranda rights and defendant was questioned for 10 to 15 minutes. Madigan subsequently left the interview room and the two attorneys remained with defendant in the room for about 15 to 20 minutes. Around 4 p.m., defendant was again interviewed by these same individuals for about 45 minutes. Defendant was given Miranda warnings by one of the assistant State’s Attorneys. Madigan also testified that Pienta, McWeeny, and Marley were never present during any interview of defendant in which Madigan was engaged. Madigan also confirmed the previous witnesses’ testimony that defendant was not abused.

Assistant State’s Attorney Peter Troy testified that he and Assistant State’s Attorney Bill Lacy were the attorneys present with Madigan during the two afternoon interviews of defendant. Troy gave defendant his Miranda warnings during the first interview. The initial conversation lasted about 30 to 45 minutes. After defendant gave his oral version, Troy asked Madigan to leave the room and he and Lacy talked with defendant. Troy testified that he asked defendant how he was being treated by police and defendant responded that he was being treated “fine.” Defendant indicated that he had eaten and had coffee. Upon being asked, defendant also indicated that no promises or threats had been made and that what he related was “the truth.” After asking defendant whether he would give a court-reported statement, Troy left the room.

Troy testified that during the second interview, he asked defendant if he would be willing to give a handwritten statement. Troy explained the procedure to defendant and defendant agreed to give such a statement. Troy then questioned defendant and wrote out the statement. After the statement was completed, defendant read it aloud, but could not decide whether to sign it, as requested by Troy. Defendant was allowed to telephone his grandmother and an attorney about what he should do, but after the telephone calls, he was still undecided. Troy also confirmed the previous testimonies that defendant had not been threatened, abused, or refused access to his father or a lawyer.

Clarence Spivey, a paramedic assigned to do physical examinations of new inmates entering Cook County jail, testified that on May 2, 1986, he took a physical history from defendant. At the time, defendant did not complain of any physical injuries, but stated that his health was good. Spivey examined defendant and found no evidence of injury.

Defendant’s Testimony and Evidence

Defendant testified that on April 30, 1986, at approximately 3:15 p.m., he was arrested at James Hill’s home by three police officers and taken to the fourth district station. Officer James Jackson, one of the arresting officers, read defendant his Miranda warnings. According to defendant, he remained at the fourth district for a few hours and he and Hill were then taken by Harley, Pederson and Pienta to Area Two.

According to defendant, on the way to Area Two, Pienta slapped Hill across the face. Pienta then turned toward defendant and told him that if the three officers had found him, they would have killed him. Defendant stated that after arriving at Area Two, he was taken to a second-floor interview room and his right wrist was handcuffed to a ring on the wall. Neither of the three officers advised defendant of his Miranda rights. At around 7 p.m., the three officers took defendant to downtown police headquarters.

Upon their return to Area Two, around 10 p.m., defendant was again placed in the second-floor interview room and one wrist was handcuffed to the wall. At this time, defendant told the three officers that if they were not going to charge him, then they should return him to the fourth district or take him to the Cook County jail for his other cases. Defendant also told them that if they were going to keep him, then he wanted a lawyer. Pienta responded by telling defendant that he was defendant’s lawyer and that defendant was going to do what he was told to do.

According to defendant, from that point on, “a lot” of derogatory statements were made by Pienta and Marley. At around midnight, Pienta allegedly said, “I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am tired of listening to this bull — , I am about ready to kick his ass.” Harley, however, allegedly assured Pienta that defendant would cooperate and asked defendant if that were so. Defendant responded by saying, “No, we don’t have to go through that, I just told you that I didn’t have anything else to say and that I wanted a lawyer.” Pienta then left the room. The other two officers, however, remained in the room. When Pienta next entered the room, “he had like a manilla folder, and behind the manilla folder he had a gray plastic like wrapped up like a newspaper more or less.” The plastic looked liked a typewriter cover.

Four additional officers then entered the room and began questioning and verbally harassing defendant. Pienta approached defendant and placed a second pair of handcuffs on his arms so that they were together behind his back and cuffed to the wall. Pienta then put his hand around defendant’s neck and asked defendant whether he would cooperate, slapping defendant across the chest with his hand in a half-fist. The other officers, standing around the room, closed the door and turned off the lights; Pederson, who had been sitting behind a desk, reached for the plastic and placed it over defendant’s face while the remaining officers hit, kicked, held and restrained defendant. Defendant was hit at least four or five times in the chest and stomach. He was not hit in the back, arms, or face. The plastic was held over his face for about one minute. When they removed the plastic and the lights were turned on, the officers returned to their former positions about the room. Pienta threatened more abuse unless defendant cooperated. Defendant again requested to speak with a lawyer, but was told that “you are not getting an m.f. attorney.”

Defendant was asked again whether he would cooperate and he responded that he had said all that he was going to say. The group of officers then repeated their previous abusive activities, holding the plastic over defendant’s face for about two minutes, until finally defendant said, “Okay, anything you say.” Defendant agreed with the officers’ “theory about what happened” because every time he said he did not do “it” he had to “go through a major change of getting hit, or getting plastic put on [his] face.” The additional four officers then left the room and only the original three remained.

When defendant asked for something to drink because he felt “choked,” one of the officers exited and returned with brown liquid in a cup. Defendant believed that Harley was the officer. Defendant asked what the liquid was and was told that he was lucky because it was bourbon. Defendant would not drink the liquid. Then he placed the cup on the table and again asked for water. The officer then handed defendant the cup and encouraged him to drink, so he did.

The three officers then told defendant that the State's Attorney was coming and they wanted him to say that he had killed the Sanchezes. After removing defendant’s handcuffs, all the officers left the room. Defendant saw a paper clip on the table, took it and scribbled something on the bench where he sat which was attached to the wall. He was alone in the room for about one hour.

Owen and a red-haired officer subsequently entered the room. Defendant asked whether it was possible for the officer to leave so that he could talk to Owen alone. The officer left. Owen told defendant that he had been advised by police that defendant wanted to give a statement. Defendant responded that he had nothing to say, that he had previously asked police for a lawyer, but they had not provided him access and so he was now requesting one. Owen then walked to. the door, told the red-haired officer that defendant did not want to make a statement, but wanted to speak to a lawyer, and left.

About one minute after Owen left the room, the red-haired officer re-entered and threatened defendant by telling him that unless he cooperated he would be subjected to greater abuse. The officer then laid his gun on the table and continued to tell defendant that he was going to cooperate. Defendant was not handcuffed at the time. The officer also told defendant that “it is your word against our word. And who are they going to believe, you or me[?]” Defendant asked to make a phone call and asked for a lawyer, but the officer told him “nope” and left the room.

Another officer came into the room immediately after the red-haired officer left and handcuffed defendant’s right wrist to the wall. About an hour or two later, a couple of officers came into the room with photographs and defendant identified Caine. About an hour or two later, the police brought Caine past the door of the interview room and asked defendant whether he knew Caine.

Defendant testified that it was early in the morning by this time. Madigan entered the room first and threw an “Egg McMuffin” at defendant, who had been yelling for someone to come because he wanted to go to the bathroom. Assistant State’s Attorney Troy arrived and he and Madigan interviewed defendant. When defendant asked for a lawyer or to be allowed to talk to his father, Troy said it would not be necessary. Troy related the police version of events, telling defendant that he was there to help defendant and that all defendant had to say was that he killed the Sanchezes, sign a statement and he could leave. No written statement was then before Troy.

Troy then left the room, said that he would prepare the statement and all defendant had to do was to sign it. Troy also told defendant that Caine had given a statement implicating defendant and that all defendant had to do was give a similar statement against Caine. Defendant then reiterated that he had nothing to do with the murders and still wanted a lawyer. Troy then agreed to work out a “deal” whereby defendant could call someone after he signed the statement. Defendant told Troy that he should let him make a phone call and then he would agree to do whatever Troy requested. Troy was reluctant, but then finally agreed provided defendant promised to sign the statement.

Defendant was then allowed to make a phone call in another room. However, when he attempted to call information for the telephone number of an attorney he was familiar with, Troy took the phone from defendant’s hand and asked whether defendant was ready to do what he had been asked to do. Defendant said that he needed to make one more phone call so Troy relented and allowed him to do so. Defendant called his grandmother, but Troy again took the phone from defendant’s hand and told defendant to tell his grandmother that he had killed two people.

After the phone calls, defendant was taken to another interview room. Troy came into the room about an hour or two later and ordered defendant to sign the statement. When defendant refused to sign and told Troy that he had lied when he previously agreed to sign, Troy became angry and choked and kicked defendant. Defendant again refused to sign the statement, said that he did not do “it,” and Troy left the room.

On direct examination, defendant testified that when the three officers left him, which was after he was offered the liquid, he had one handcuff on his right wrist. When he talked with Owen, he had on one handcuff. When the red-haired officer spoke to him, he either had one handcuff on or they were both off. Defendant recalled testifying on direct that he was not handcuffed when talking with the red-haired officer. Defendant then agreed that the red-haired officer placed the gun on the table between them and that defendant did not have on any handcuffs. Defendant also testified that he was speaking with the attorney when Troy took the phone.

The trial court subsequently denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements on the basis of this evidence.

“ ‘Whether a statement is voluntarily given depends upon the totality of the circumstances. The test of voluntariness is whether the statement was made freely, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement of any sort, or whether the defendant’s will was overcome at the time he confessed.’ ” (People v. Redd (1990), 135 Ill. 2d 252, 292, quoting People v. Clark (1986), 114 Ill. 2d 450, 457; see also People v. Thomas (1990), 137 Ill. 2d 500, 516.) Factors to be considered in making the determination include the age, education and intelligence of the accused, the duration of the questioning, whether he received constitutional rights or was subjected to any physical punishment (People v. Martin (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 412, 427), or whether promises of reward were made or rudimentary necessities of life were disregarded by authorities (People v. Jackson (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 102,110).

The voluntariness of a confession, under ordinary circumstances, only needs to be established by a preponderance of the evidence. (Clark, 114 Ill. 2d at 457, citing People v. Jackson (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 102, 109; see also Redd, 135 Ill. 2d at 292.) The burden is upon the State to establish that the confession was voluntary, and upon the establishment of a prima facie case, the burden of going forward with proof properly shifts to the accused. See People v. King (1962), 24 Ill. 2d 409, 411.

The question of the competency of a confession is for the trial court alone to decide. (See Redd, 135 Ill. 2d at 292, citing People v. Carter (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 31, 38.) Rulings by the trial court on the question of the voluntariness of a confession will not be disturbed by a court of review unless against the manifest weight of the evidence. See People v. Kincaid (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 107, 120; Prim, 53 Ill. 2d at 70.

The record belies defendant’s assertion that his confession was involuntary and that police subjected him to continuous physical and psychological abuse over a 25-hour period. Defendant’s testimony reveals that he was given Miranda warnings at the time he was arrested. Defendant was apparently interviewed not more than five times and no one interview session appears to have lasted longer than 45 minutes. By defendant’s own admission, he was alone in the interview room for possibly seven hours and may have been unhandcuffed for at least one hour. Defendant also acknowledged to Spivey that he was in good health and his body displayed no signs of abuse. Neither did defendant advise Spivey that police abused him. Further, by defendant’s own testimony, when presented with the opportunity to tell Owen that he had been abused, he did not, but only told him that he did not want to give a statement and wanted to speak to an attorney. According to defendant, remarkably, this meeting with Owen occurred soon after the two sessions of police abuse. Since Owen allegedly heeded what defendant said concerning his unwillingness to give a statement, it seems inconsistent for defendant not to have also complained to Owen about the abuse.

There was also testimony that defendant was given food during the evening of April 30, and defendant, himself, acknowledged that McWeeny brought him food sometime during the next morning. Defendant also acknowledged that he was allowed to make several telephone calls. Further, Owen testified at trial that defendant indicated he had been treated fine, given food and coffee, and Troy testified similarly. Finally, there was ample consistent testimony that defendant was not abused or coerced, nor did he request an attorney or his father.

Under these circumstances, the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court properly determined that defendant’s confession was voluntarily made. There is no need to consider whether admission of defendant’s confession was harmless, as we determine no error occurred.

We next address defendant’s argument that the State failed to call all material witnesses to the circumstances surrounding his confession. Specifically, defendant claims that the State failed to call Assistant State’s Attorneys Kip Owen and William Lacy, as well as the “red-haired officer.” The State initially responds that defendant has waived consideration of this issue on appeal by failing to object in the trial court. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 114 — 11(d) (providing in pertinent part that an objection to the failure to call material witness must be made at trial).

The defense counsel who represented defendant during the suppression hearing did not object to the State’s failure to call Owen, Lacy or the “red-haired officer.” After a hearing on the motion was held, a second defense counsel filed a second motion to suppress or to reopen the motion, one of the bases being the State’s failure to call Owen, Lacy, or another unidentified officer (“red-haired officer”). The trial court noted that no objection had been raised during the suppression hearing, found that nothing would be gained by the additional testimony of Owen, and thus declined to relitigate or reopen the motion to suppress.

Defendant raised this issue at trial in his second motion to suppress or reopen hearing on the motion. The record is incomplete, but it appears that the trial court had not yet ruled on the initial motion to suppress. As a result, the second motion presented the trial court with the opportunity to correct the alleged error and the State was also provided the opportunity to present the allegedly material witnesses. (See People v. Terrell (1989), 132 Ill. 2d 178, 202.) Accordingly, we conclude that defendant sufficiently raised this issue at trial so as to preclude application of waiver in this instance. (See People v. Harper (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 398, 402 (recognizing error despite the absence of a timely objection in light of the “peculiar circumstances” of case which suggested constitutional infringement); see also In re J.C. (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 289 (holding objection need not occur at suppression hearing).) We turn to consider whether the State met its burden of proof by calling all material witnesses.

When the voluntary nature of a confession is challenged by a motion to suppress, the State must produce all material witnesses connected with the taking of the statements or explain their absence. (People v. Armstrong (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 471, 475-76; In re Lamb (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 383, 389.) This court has consistently enforced this rule in an unbroken line of cases. (See People v. Rogers (1922), 303 Ill. 578; People v. Sweeney (1922), 304 Ill. 502; see Armstrong, 51 Ill. 2d at 476 (and cases cited).) Further, the precise scope of a preliminary hearing to determine voluntariness will depend somewhat upon the circumstances of each case. (People v. Nemke (1962), 23 Ill. 2d 591, 600.) “[Wjhere the claim of coercion is based upon a single act of physical brutality allegedly committed at a particular time and place, evidence as to what took place at other times covering no claim of coercion might well be regarded as immaterial.” (Nemke, 23 Ill. 2d at 600.) Where, however, the claim of coercion is based not upon isolated physical acts but upon the combined effect of the totality of circumstances, the scope of inquiry cannot be so restricted. Nemke, 23 Ill. 2d at 600.

Pienta and Marley testified that Owen and themselves interviewed defendant at 1 a.m. on May 1, 1986, and that defendant gave a statement. Defendant’s testimony makes no mention of this interview. Defendant instead testified that he met with Owen and the red-haired officer shortly after Pienta, Harley, Pederson and the other officers beat him. According to defendant, during this meeting he told Owen that he did not want to make a statement, contrary to what police had advised Owen, and he wanted to speak to an attorney. Owen did not persist in any questioning, but relayed defendant’s request to the red-haired officer. Based upon this record, Owen was a material witness connected with the taking of defendant’s confession. By testimony of the State’s witnesses, Owen was the first State’s Attorney to receive defendant’s voluntary statement. By defendant’s testimony, Owen was prepared to take a statement, but did not after learning defendant was unwilling and wanted to speak to an attorney.

According to the State, Lacy allegedly attended two interviews with Troy where defendant made voluntary statements. Considering defendant’s testimony to the contrary that he made no statements during these interviews, that Troy wanted him to sign a written statement and choked and kicked him when he did not, Lacy was a material witness to the voluntariness of defendant’s statements.

Obviously, the red-haired officer was a material witness as defendant alleged that the officer threatened him with a gun and greater abuse unless he cooperated and gave a statement. (See People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill. 2d 88, 93 (holding that materiality of witnesses in coerced-confession cases is not limited to those physically present when a confession is actually made, but extends as well to those who were present when the alleged illegal conduct took place).) According to the State, a written statement of defendant was subsequently obtained.

Nonetheless, the material witness rule is not a mechanical rule but a practical one, designed to assist.the court in determining whether the confession was voluntary. (People v. Sims (1961), 21 Ill. 2d 425, 429; see People v. Brooks (1987), 115 Ill. 2d 510, 518.) In the final analysis, whether a confession is voluntary or involuntary is a matter of competency of the evidence which should be left to the discretion of the trial court. (See Sims, 21 Ill. 2d at 434 (House, J., specially concurring, joined by Bristow and Klingbiel, JJ.).) If in order to resolve the matter, the trial court requires that all of the material witnesses be called, it should do so. Yet, if the trial court is satisfied to hear fewer than all of such witnesses, that should also be within the court’s discretionary power and a reviewing court should reverse only where there has been a clear abuse of that discretion. See Sims, 21 Ill. 2d at 434 (House, J., specially concurring, joined by Bristow and Klingbiel, JJ.); cf. Brooks, 115 Ill. 2d 510 (where material witness rule restrictively interpreted as requiring the testimony of those present during the alleged misconduct).

The trial court was satisfied that the ruling on the motion to suppress was supported by the evidence and saw no need to call Owen, Lacy or the red-haired officer. Considering Owen’s trial testimony that he was present at the 1 a.m. interview and that defendant confessed in detail (see People v. Caballero (1984), 102 Ill. 2d 23, 36 (holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress)), Spivey’s testimony that defendant said that his health was good and displayed no signs of physical abuse, as well as the several officers’ testimonies, we cannot say that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in deciding the motion without these witnesses’ testimony. (Cf. In re Lamb (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 383.) The purpose of the material witness rule is to safeguard against improperly induced confessions and not to require an empty exercise. People v. Smith (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 328, 333.

Defendant’s related contention is that the trial court failed to examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding his statements because it excluded evidence of certain writings he made during custodial interrogation. The State argues that exclusion was proper as the writings constituted hearsay.

Defense counsel sought to introduce certain photographs which allegedly depicted an interior view of the interview room where defendant was questioned. Defense counsel made an offer of proof that the photographs were intended to provide a view of the interview room where defendant was questioned and that he also intended to introduce photographs showing “certain, marks” that defendant had made while in the room. The trial court ruled that the photographs of the room were inadmissible, as they lacked relevancy and were unreliable. The trial court stated it did not believe the photographs correctly and truthfully portrayed the condition of the room at the time defendant was questioned.

Carrothers was called to testify by the defense, but at the outset of his testimony, the State objected. Defense counsel made an offer of proof that Carrothers would testify that, on May 27, 1986, he went to Area Two, viewed the writings defendant allegedly made and took photographs which he was prepared to identify as well as the locations where he found the writings. The defense argued that it was not seeking to introduce the contents of statements made by the marks, but merely the mode or manner in which the material was written. The trial court ruled, however, that any statement in the form of markings was inadmissible and was not relevant. Having so ruled, the court excused Carrothers.

Photographs subsequently introduced at sentencing showed the following writings on the bench of the interview room:

“I lied about murders police threatened me with violence slapped and suffocated me with plastic — no phone-no dad signed false statement to murders (Tonto) Aaron.”

“Sign false statements to murder, Tonto on statements is code word Aaron.”

On the door of the room was written “Aaron lied.”

Self-serving statements by an accused are inadmissible hearsay. (People v. Tenny (1991), 224 Ill. App. 3d 53, 62; see also People v. Visnack (1985), 135 Ill. App. 3d 113, 127; People v. Barnes (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 262, 267; but see People v. Berry (1988), 172 Ill. App. 3d 256, 262.) Such statements are considered inadmissible hearsay because their relevance depends upon the truth of the matter asserted or the declarant’s belief in the truth or falsity of the matter asserted. (People v. Young (1990), 206 Ill. App. 3d 789, 811; see also People v. Vanda (1982), 111 Ill. App. 3d 551, 558 (holding testimony regarding out-of-court statements made by a defendant after commission of a crime is incompetent because the defendant had a motive to fabricate favorable testimony relating to innocence).) In this case, defendant’s writings clearly constituted inadmissible hearsay.

Defendant argues, however, that the writings fall within the spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule. In order for a statement to be admitted under this exception, (1) the occurrence must be sufficiently startling to produce a spontaneous and unreflecting statement, (2) there must be an absence of time to fabricate, and (3) the statement must relate to the circumstances of the occurrence. (People v. Shum (1987), 117 Ill. 2d 317, 343.) The record in this case demonstrates that defendant had time to fabricate. By his own testimony, defendant was alone in the interview room at this time for about an hour, not including a brief time during which he was not questioned and drank the brown liquid. The writings are not then an exception to hearsay. Cf. People v. Weaver (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 545.

Defendant also argues that the writings are prior consistent statements and that they fall within an exception to the general rule that such statements are inadmissible. The State correctly argues, however, that in order for this exception to apply, the trial testimony sought to be corroborated must be charged as recently fabricated or the witness must have a motive for testifying falsely. (See People v. Emerson (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 487, 501.) Obviously, the motive for defendant to testify that his statements were coerced existed prior to and when he made the writings.

Defendant also asserts that the writings were also admissible under the curative admissibility or the completeness doctrines. The curative admissibility doctrine was not invoked at trial by defendant and, further, is irrelevant to the issue here. See 1 J. Wigmore, Evidence §15, at 731 (1983) (prior introduction of inadmissible evidence estops subsequent objection to other inadmissible evidence offered by opposing party); Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Bunding (1904), 210 Ill. 39; People v. Higgins (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 912, 931 (holding curative admissibility doctrine is not intended to operate so as to permit a party to introduce irrelevant evidence merely because his opponent brought out some evidence on the same subject, but is limited to situations where necessary to eradicate undue prejudicial inference which might otherwise ensue from the introduction of the original evidence).

The completeness doctrine permits an opposing party to introduce the remainder of an utterance or writing, so much as is required to shed light on the meaning of the evidence already received. (Lawson v. G.D. Searle & Co. (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 543, 556.) The mere mention of a conversation or statement does not entitle the opponent to bring out its content. (People v. Crawford (1962), 23 Ill. 2d 605.) The remainder of the conversation or statement must concern “ ‘what was said on the same subject at the same time.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) (People v. DePoy (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 433, 438, quoting 12 J. Wigmore, Evidence §2115 (3d ed. 1940).) Defendant’s writings here were not the remainder of his statements to police. While the writings may have commented on or referred to those statements, nonetheless, they represented a separate statement, made at a different time, presumably to a different audience and concerning a different subject.

II

Additional Pretrial Error

Defendant maintains that additional errors occurred during voir dire which require that he receive a new trial. Defendant alleges the following errors: the denial of his request for individual voir dire and sequestration of jurors; the prohibition of counsel’s participation in voir dire; the failure to preclude the State from death-qualifying a potential jury at the guilt phase; proceeding with a venire of 59; the exclusion of jurors voicing an opinion as to the death penalty even though they believed they could be fair in determining guilt or innocence; the failure to allow rehabilitation of Wither-spooned jurors; the failure to require the State to give race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory challenges of black jurors; and the excuse of jurors for cause prior to their placement on a panel and without allowing their rehabilitation by defendant.

Defendant merely lists these alleged errors, neither citing to authority or the record, nor presenting any argument in support of his contentions. We are mindful that a point raised but not argued or supported by citation to relevant authority fails to satisfy the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (134 Ill. 2d 341(e)(7)) and is therefore waived. (People v. Felella (1989), 131 Ill. 2d 525, 540, citing Brown v. Tenney (1988), 125 Ill. 2d 348, 362.) Consequently, we deem the issues concerning the propriety of voir dire waived.

Defendant’s additional contention, however, is that the State failed to comply with discovery because it failed to produce all notes taken by police officers. Defendant also contends that the State was implicated in altering those notes. Defendant contends that, as a result, his statements should have been suppressed or other sanctions should have been imposed upon the State. We note that the content of the notes would seem to concern the extent to which defendant was Mirandized.

The record shows that during the suppression hearing, Pienta testified that he gave defendant Miranda warnings before each session of questioning. Pienta agreed, however, that a supplemental police report, indicating that Pienta had given defendant Miranda warnings before defendant was taken from Area Two to the polygraph examination, did not indicate that defendant was admonished at any later time. Pienta additionally testified concerning a four-page copy of handwritten notes, taken by the officers during defendant’s interrogation, on which their report was based. Pienta testified that Harley wrote the notes, Pienta did not sign the name “Pienta” which appeared on the notes, he did not know if Harley had and there were additional pages which “show[ed]” that defendant was informed of his rights during each interview. When questioned by the trial court as to whether the State had the additional pages, the prosecutor responded that he did not know because “I haven’t gone through the whole general — .”

Following a brief recess to clarify what notes were produced, defense counsel made an offer of proof that the State’s four-page copy bore the notation, “right, Pienta,” whereas defense counsel’s copy did not. Defense counsel alleged that .the State’s copy had been altered. The trial court then indicated, for purposes of the record, that defendant had been previously represented by two other attorneys and that whatever documentary evidence defense counsel possessed had been given to him by his predecessor. The court then suggested that defense counsel request the additional pages and asked the State to make that information, including any corrections or changes, available.

Once again, defendant has waived the issue by failing to support his argument with citation to relevant authority. (See 134 Ill. 2d 341(e)(7); Felella, 131 Ill. 2d at 540.) Moreover, to the extent that we have considered the issue, we discern no violation sufficient to require the imposition of sanctions or the suppression of defendant’s statements. The trial court reasonably concluded that the State inadvertently failed to produce the additional pages. Defense counsel did not then pursue additional discovery to obtain that information as suggested by the trial court. Additionally, the trial court appears to have rejected the notion that the slight discrepancy between the copies necessarily implicated the State in wrongdoing and that the discrepancy was particularly meaningful. We would agree.

Further, both parties agreed that defendant received Miranda warnings at the time of arrest and the supplemental police report indicated that fact as well. Thus, there is no controverted issue concerning whether defendant was advised of his fifth amendment rights. Whether or not police continued to warn defendant at the outset of each interview is simply beside the point. See People v. Hill (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 125, 131-32 (once Miranda’s mandate is complied with at the threshold of questioning, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings at the beginning of each successive interview).

Ill

Miscellaneous Trial Error

Defendant argues that numerous errors occurred at trial. Defendant initially contends that evidence of his gang membership and local gang affiliations was irrelevant, highly inflammatory and prejudicial. The State responds that the probative value of this evidence tended to establish motive and outweighed its possible prejudicial effect and, thus, the trier of fact was entitled to receive such information. We agree.

During opening argument, the State told the jury that they would hear evidence that defendant was nicknamed “Lone Ranger” and was a “leader of the Apache Ranger street gang.” The State described defendant and fellow gang members as being on a “mission” when they went to the Sanchez home. No objection was raised. During presentation of the evidence, the State elicited testimony of defendant’s gang membership and leadership from various witnesses. Marva Hall testified that she knew defendant by the name of “Lone Ranger” and knew him to be a leader in the Apache Rangers gang. Sharon Haynes also testified that defendant was known as “Ranger” and belonged to a gang. Carlton Ford testified that defendant was nicknamed “Ranger” and that he and defendant had been members of the same gang. Ford also testified that he knew “Rambo” and he would see defendant at Rambo’s house. The State then introduced photographs of Rambo’s house, depicting walls covered with gang graffiti, which Ford identified.

Lastly, Officer Jackson, the officer who located defendant hiding in the attic, testified that he investígates gang problems and attempts to familiarize himself with gang members in the district. Jackson testified that he knew defendant as a member of a street gang. Jackson also explained the procedure undertaken by the police department in its attempts to garner information about street gang membership. Jackson further testified as to the affiliations of the local gangs, including the Apache Rangers, and that he had previously witnessed Caine in defendant’s company. He explained that on April 30, he was looking for defendant at several locations based on information from “street sources” and police records.

This court recognizes that, particularly in metropolitan areas, there may be a strong prejudice against street gangs. (People v. Smith (1990), 141 Ill. 2d 40, 58.) It has been consistently held, however, that where evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible, it is not to be excluded because it may also have a tendency to prejudice the accused. (See People v. Hairston (1970), 46 Ill. 2d 348, 372 (and cases cited).) Evidence of gang affiliation need not be excluded if it is otherwise relevant and admissible. (Smith, 141 Ill. 2d at 58 (and cases cited).) Evidence indicating the defendant was a gang member or involved in gang-related activity is generally held to be admissible to show common purpose or design, or to provide a motive for an otherwise inexplicable act. (Smith, 141 Ill. 2d at 58, citing Hairston, 46 Ill. 2d at 372.) Such evidence, however, is only admissible where there is sufficient proof that membership or activity is related to the crime charged. (Smith, 141 Ill. 2d at 58, citing Hairston, 46 Ill. 2d at 372.) The determination of whether such evidence is admissible is primarily an inquiry into its relevance to the charges. People v. Buchanan (1991), 211 Ill. App. 3d 305, 320 (citing Hairston, 46 Ill. 2d at 372, and People v. Calderon (1981), 98 Ill. App. 3d 657, 661).

In the present case, defendant introduced the element of gang membership and affiliations by admitting to police that he was known as “Ranger,” who is “all you need *** when you go on a job,” and that he and Caine went to the Sanchez residence because Caine was having gang problems in his “hood” and needed guns. Defendant’s admission to police that he, “Rambo,” Caine and “Arbuckle” went on a “mission” when they went to the Sanchez home was additional evidence of that element. Further, defendant admitted that the motive for the Sanchez murders was to obtain guns for Caine’s gang problems. Testimony by Hall, Haynes, and Ford that defendant was a gang member or leader merely corroborated defendant’s admission of gang affiliation. Photographic evidence of Rambo’s gang affiliation served to further corroborate defendant’s admission that he, as the “Ranger,” and Rambo, among others, had gone on a “mission,” or a “job.” Jackson’s testimony concerning police information-gathering laid the basis for his personal knowledge of local gang affiliations and defendant’s gang membership. His personal knowledge of gang allegiances and his witnessing of Caine’s association with defendant served to confirm defendant’s expressed motivation be