People v. Adkins (239 Ill. 2d 1, 2010)

JUSTICE GARMAN

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.

Justice Kilbride took no part in the decision.

OPINION

Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant Rodney Adkins was found guilty of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9 — 1(a) (West 2002)), home invasion (720 ILCS 5/12 — 11(a)(2) (West 2002)), and residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19 — 3(a) (West 2002)). He waived a jury trial for the sentencing phase. In a subsequent bench trial, he was sentenced to death. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. His appeal lies directly to this court under Supreme Court Rule 603 (134 Ill. 2d R. 603). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm his conviction and sentence.

BACKGROUND

The Crime Scene

On July 31, 2003, two burglaries and one murder were committed at 936 Washington Boulevard in Oak Park. When Frank Perino, a resident of the building, returned from work that afternoon and entered through the rear entrance, he noticed that the back door of Catherine McAvinchey’s condominium unit had been forced open. He called the police and let them inside the building when they arrived. Officer Michael Kelly and two other officers entered the unit that had been broken into and found McAvinchey, face down on the floor. Firefighters who responded detected no vital signs.

The officer who processed the scene observed that the rear door to the apartment had been kicked in. The footprint on the door was upside down, with the heel at the top of the print and the toe at the bottom. On a kitchen counter just inside the door, the officer found a plastic cap shaped like a cap for a soda bottle but “four or five inches around” with a slot in it, as if a large bottle had been used as a bank. In the kitchen sink, he found a large knife with a bloodstain beneath it. The knife matched a set of knives stored in a wooden block on the counter. At trial, a State Police DNA analyst testified that she compared blood samples collected at the crime scene to samples from defendant, his girlfriend Romanette Norwood, and the victim. Blood found on the handle and blade of the knife was consistent with the victim’s.

In the living room, the officer found the victim lying face down on the floor with a large pool of blood around her head and neck. The pool of blood had begun to dry at the edges. Clear fluid found when the body was moved was later determined to be spinal fluid. A bloodstain on the back of her shirt appeared to have been made by wiping the knife blade on the shirt.

The apartment had been ransacked. Desk drawers and dresser drawers were pulled out. Two purses appeared to have been rifled through. An empty space on the desk, near a printer and power cord, was the size of a computer. A large plastic bottle with a picture of a football helmet on it was lying on a chair near the desk. The bottle had no cap and it appeared to match the bottle cap found in the kitchen.

Christine Callahan was the victim’s neighbor. The two women, along with Perino and a fourth resident of the building, used the same locked entrance in the rear of the building to access their units. The lock did not always work. The back door to Callahan’s apartment was approximately 20 feet from the victim’s back door. Callahan’s apartment was also burglarized on July 31. Several pieces of jewelry were taken, along with a large plastic bottle with a Cleveland Browns logo in which she saved coins. She identified the bottle found on the chair in the victim’s apartment as the one that had been taken from her apartment. At trial, a State Police fingerprint analyst testified that she compared latent fingerprints from the crime scenes to exemplars from defendant, Norwood, and the victim. She found one fingerprint belonging to the defendant on the plastic bottle.

The same officer who processed the murder scene processed Callahan’s apartment. He observed that her back door had also been kicked in and her apartment ransacked. He found a cigarette butt on the floor at the bottom of a spiral staircase that led to the upper level of Callahan’s unit. He collected the cigarette butt and sent it to the crime lab for processing. The State Police DNA analyst testified at trial that the male DNA profile found on the cigarette butt would be expected to occur in approximately one in 650 billion black individuals, one in 2.1 trillion white individuals, and one in 2.5 trillion Hispanic unrelated individuals. The profile matched defendant’s DNA profile.

The Investigation

On September 8 and 9, 2003, Norwood was interviewed by the Oak Park police. She was wearing a Gucci watch and a pair of prescription eyeglasses, which were taken from her and inventoried as evidence. Information from this interview led police to a pawn shop and to the apartment of Fanny Roberts, defendant’s mother. At the pawn shop, police obtained pawn sheets dated July 31, 2003, containing defendant’s name. The police recovered a pair of sunglasses from Roberts’ apartment.

On September 10, 2003, Norwood gave a videotaped statement to Assistant State’s Attorney Jamie Santini. In this statement, she said that she had been defendant’s girlfriend for 13 years and that she was then living with him. She stated that around June 24 or 25, they were in Oak Park and “he had me ring somebody’s bell” to see if the person was at home “[s]o he could burglarize it.” She walked back to the corner, where defendant was waiting, and told him that no one was home. He went to the house and kicked the door in as she watched from the alley. She said that she did not enter the house. She left and did not see him again until he came to his cousin’s house later with “some tapes, VCR, DVD, a couple of movies,” which he said he got from the house he had burglarized.

Norwood described their activities over the next several days. On July 31, 2003, she slept until noon. Earlier that morning, she briefly awoke when defendant left. He kissed her on her jaw and said he was leaving and would be back. He returned at about 12:30 p.m., while Norwood and defendant’s mother were watching television together. He was “sweating heavily” and he carried a black duffle bag. Defendant pulled two pairs of glasses from his pocket and gave them to Norwood. He took a watch from his other pocket and gave it to her. Santini showed her photographs of the glasses and the watch that she had been wearing earlier and of the sunglasses found in Roberts’ apartment. She identified them as the same items defendant had given her. Defendant also gave a gold chain necklace to his mother. He opened the bag and “took out a black screen monitor” that was “like a computer” and put it on the bed. He also took out a laptop computer in a case and a bag full of coins. She had never seen any of these items in his possession before that date. She identified the laptop and the duffle bag from photographs she was shown by Santini.

According to Norwood, defendant left for a “couple of minutes,” taking the computers to the next-door neighbor’s to try to sell them. He returned with the computers, which he placed in his mother’s room.

Norwood and defendant took a bus and a train to a pawn shop in Forest Park, where he pawned two rings for “about $70.” Then they went to a liquor store so that he could convert the “[cjoins into money.” Defendant purchased a “scratch out” lottery ticket and collected $500 in winnings. They bought some heroin and some “rocks” (cocaine), ate tacos, and walked to the Grand Hotel, where they checked into a room and remained for about eight hours.

The next morning, August 1, 2003, they went to Roberts’ house to sleep. That evening, defendant’s Uncle Kary came over with a friend. Defendant brought out one of the computers to show the friend. Norwood turned it on for him and clicked on the “My Computer” icon. A name appeared on the screen, “[t]he lady name that was on the news, Catherine’s McKen — I don’t know.” The television was on at the time and the victim’s picture was on the screen with the name “Catherine McKenzie, something like that.” She was “in a state of shock” and turned the computer off and closed it. Defendant then brought out the other computer to show the friend, who ended up buying both computers in a “package deal.”

Later that night, she and defendant were at her mother’s house when another news story about the murder came on the television. She “was hearing the whole story about the lady got slashed in the throat, something like that. And it seems to be that she stumbled up on the burglar.” Norwood’s mother glanced at defendant and asked him if he would do “something like that.” He told her that he would not. A bit later, Nor-wood asked him again and he said “he didn’t want to talk about it now,” but he agreed to talk about it later at the hotel.

They purchased more drugs and went to another hotel, The Ritz. She identified the hotel from a photograph. When they were in the room, she asked defendant “did he do that to that lady.” He said that “he didn’t know if he killed her, he said he hit her. And she fell down cause she walked in on him and saw his face.” He told her “it was a mistake. She walked in on me.” They took some drugs, which made him tell her “more about it because he was just saying that he hit her, he didn’t do all that other stuff to her.” After he started smoking crack, “he broke out crying and stuff and he admit that he killed the lady.” He asked Norwood if she would tell on him and she said she would not.

August 22, 2003, was her birthday. They were at his mother’s apartment. She and defendant had an argument that day over the way he was treating her. She told him she wanted to break up and he “started going off.” She told his mother that she was afraid of the defendant “[b]ecause he killed that lady. And I thought he would kill me as well.”

The interview concluded with Norwood stating that she had been treated well by the police department, that no threats or promises were made to her, and that she was free from the effects of drugs or alcohol.

The victim’s brother identified the watch and eyeglasses that were taken from Norwood and the sunglasses found in Roberts’ apartment as his sister’s. The State Police DNA analyst testified at trial that she found “a mixture” of DNA on the watch. One of the DNA profiles was female and was consistent with Norwood’s. The other profile was male, but was insufficient for comparison.

The police also spoke by telephone to defendant’s uncle, Kary Pugh, who told police that his friend, Earnest Hoskins, had the victim’s computer. At trial, Hoskins testified that he and Pugh visited the residence of Pugh’s sister-in-law, Fanny Roberts, on August 1, 2003. The defendant, who is Roberts’ son, was there with his girlfriend, Romanette Norwood. Defendant showed two computers to Hoskins. The computers were in a black canvas duffle bag. One was a Sony Vaio laptop and the other was a “big, black” model that he was not familiar with. Hoskins offered to buy the computers for $250, not expecting defendant to accept so low an offer because the computers were worth much more. Defendant accepted the offer.

When contacted by the police, Hoskins explained to the police that he no longer had the computers in his possession, but that he could retrieve them. On September 12, 2003, Hoskins turned over the duffle bag containing the computers to the police. A service number on the Sony Vaio computer matched the victim’s missing computer. When the police turned on the Vaio, a window appeared showing that the software was registered to the victim. At trial, Hoskins identified the duffle bag and the Sony Vaio computer and its carrying case.

Defendant’s Statements

On September 17, 2003, Oak Park detectives took defendant from the Cook County jail to the Oak Park police station. After he was read his Miranda rights and signed a waiver, he was questioned initially by detectives William Cotter and Juan Paladines and later by Assistant State’s Attorney Santini. Defendant made several incriminating statements.

According to the detectives’ testimony, defendant said that he kicked in the back door of the victim’s apartment and entered. He unlocked the front door to give himself a means of escape. He was inside, looking at a laptop computer, when he heard the front door open. He saw a woman standing there, looking at him. Defendant claimed that Norwood knocked the woman to the floor and then he jumped on her upper back. He got a knife from the kitchen and began to cut her neck because he feared that she could identify him. He sawed on the back of her neck and, according to his statement, he told Nor-wood that because they were in this together, she had to do so as well. He stated that she did so. After he washed the knife in the sink, he continued to burglarize the apartment, taking several pairs of glasses, some jewelry, some change, and a laptop. He then went to the door of the adjacent apartment, kicked in that door, and burglarized that apartment.

The detectives then called Santini, who also interviewed defendant. Paladines sat in on that interview, during which defendant again admitted killing the victim and described the burglary and murder. Defendant agreed to give a videotaped statement.

The tape and a transcript were admitted into evidence at trial and the tape was played for the jury. In that statement, defendant said that he got up early the day of the murder so that he could “go out and work, you know, do a sting, you know, do a little hustle.” Asked to explain what he meant, defendant said, “We’ll go out from time to time and burglarize.” He said that “about 70 percent of the time,” he and Norwood would commit burglary together. She would go to the door of the home or apartment while he walked to the corner. She would ring the bell to make sure no one was at home. Defendant also explained that he liked to start early in the day, so “you can see people going to work, you know, you can see them leave the house.” They did not normally wear gloves, but would put circles of tape on the tips of their fingers to avoid leaving fingerprints. He claimed that he and Nor-wood were wearing tape on their fingers the day of the killing.

When he got to the back doors at 936 Washington Boulevard, he could hear Norwood “still ringing the bell,” so he knew there was no one at home. He then “donkey kicked” one of the doors, with his back to the door so that his heel was higher than his toes. The door gave way on the second kick. He went through the front door of the apartment and down the stairs to let Nor-wood inside. Once back in the apartment, he left the front door unlocked as a means of quick escape if it became necessary.

He went directly to the bedroom, because “that’s where the jewelry was at.” Defendant stated that he ransacked the bedroom, taking a Gucci watch and stashing several pairs of eyeglasses in a duffle bag he found there. Santini showed defendant a photograph of the black bag recovered from Hoskins and defendant identified it as the same bag.

In the living room, he found two wallets. He took $185 in cash from one and several credit cards from the other. Santini showed him photographs of two wallets found in the victim’s apartment and he acknowledged that he had opened them and taken cash and credit cards.

Defendant said that he then noticed a table with a computer on it and, on the floor next to the table, a laptop in a computer case. He identified a photograph of the table and pointed out where the laptop had been sitting on the floor. He said that he “got down on a knee to unzip” the computer case and was “closing it and zipping it up” when the victim returned through the front door. She was “about five feet” away from him and was looking directly at him. Defendant said that they “stared at each other for almost — it couldn’t have been no more than like three or four seconds but it seemed like an eternity.”

According to defendant, Norwood hit the victim from behind and knocked her to the floor. She fell “face first. And that gave me enough time to react.” Because he knew that the victim would be able to identify him, he jumped on her several times, slamming his knee on the back of her neck between her shoulder blades. He believed that she was unconscious, but knew that she was still alive. Defendant said that he told Norwood, “she done already recognized me, so you know what we got to do.”

Defendant went into the kitchen and grabbed a knife from a knife holder. Santini showed him a photograph of the knife holder, which he recognized. He explained that he slashed, stabbed, and sawed at the victim’s throat. Detective Paladines bent over the table, face down, so that defendant could demonstrate how he used the knife on the victim.

Defendant stated that while the victim was coming out of her initial unconsciousness, she was making a “gargling” sound. He claimed that at this point, he told Norwood that they were “in this together” and that Nor-wood had to prove her “solidarity.” According to him, Norwood put her hand on the knife handle and “did like a little sawing motion.” Defendant wiped the knife on the back of the victim’s shirt, then took it back to the kitchen where he rinsed it off, wiped it off to erase any palm prints, and left it in the kitchen sink. Santini showed him a photograph of the knife as it was found in the kitchen sink. Defendant said, “That’s the knife *** in the sink where I left it.”

Defendant stated that he then collected the duffle bag, some CDs, some DVDs, and the laptop and went out the back door, where he kicked in the door to another apartment and burglarized it. He took a computer and some rings. He found a large glass jar filled with change, which was too heavy to carry. He could not explain how the Cleveland Browns bottle got from Callahan’s apartment to the victim’s apartment. He thought that “maybe Romanette brought it.”

Defendant and Norwood went “straight out the front door.” He stated that neither he nor Norwood had any blood on them. He carried the black duffle bag and she was carrying another bag. They returned to the apartment they shared with his mother to drop off some of the stolen property.

He had not told Norwood about the nearly $200 in cash that he had taken and he did not want her to know. Later that day, they sold two stolen rings at a pawn shop for $50 or $60 and he gave Norwood some of the money.

At a nearby liquor store, he exchanged the stolen coins for about $55 in bills and purchased some liquor and a scratch-off lottery ticket. The ticket was a winner and he collected another $500 in cash. He and Norwood bought “a couple blows and then we got some rocks and some weed,” referring to heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. They spent several hours in a motel, “had sex, got high,” before returning to his mother’s apartment.

Defendant tried, unsuccessfully, to sell the computers to a neighbor. A day or two later, his uncle came over to have defendant cut his hair. The uncle brought a friend with him. Defendant identified a photograph of Hoskins, whom he knew as “Bishop,” as that friend. His uncle was not interested in the computers, so defendant offered the Sony Vaio to Hoskins for $500. Initially Hoskins was not interested, but then he offered defendant $300, which defendant accepted. He and Norwood took the money and “left again after that and checked into another motel.”

At the conclusion of the taped interview, defendant was asked how he had been treated while at the Oak Park police station. He replied, “I been treated just.” He acknowledged that he had been given food and something to drink and that he was given cigarettes to smoke. Overall, he said, “I been treated justice. It was almost like a big burden, you know, being lifted from my soul.”

Trial

With the exception of Norwood’s videotaped statement, which was admitted only at the sentencing phase, all of the facts summarized above came into evidence at trial.

In addition, a deputy medical examiner testified that the victim had been stabbed under the chin and on the right side of her neck. This wound severed her carotid artery. She also had a gaping incision wound on the back of her neck, consistent with a sawing motion, which was so deep that it fractured two cervical vertebrae. Another cervical vertebra, two thoracic vertebrae, and 13 ribs were also fractured. The knife from the sink could have caused the wounds to her neck. The victim also had dozens of injuries to her face, including a laceration and bruise of her upper right eyelid, petechial hemorrhages of her right eye, and abrasions on her right cheek. Her lips were lacerated in several places and she had abrasions on the bridge of her nose. She also had several hemorrhages to her brain, consistent with blunt force trauma. The fractures were consistent with a man of defendant’s size jumping on the victim’s spine. These injuries would have rendered the victim paraplegic from the chest down. Other lacerations, bruises, and abrasions were consistent with an assault. A stab wound on the victim’s hand was consistent with her trying to ward off the attack. In the medical examiner’s opinion, the cause of death was multiple injuries from an assault; the manner of death was homicide.

After the State rested its case, the defense rested without presenting evidence. Closing arguments were made and jury instructions were given. The jury found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first degree murder, home invasion, and residential burglary.

ANALYSIS

I. Potential Juror Excused for Cause

During voir dire, venire member C.B. told the court that she had never been an accused, a complainant, or a witness in a criminal case. The prosecutor moved to excuse her for cause because her “rap sheet” showed that she had been charged with misdemeanor battery in 1991. The battery charge was “SOL’d,” or stricken with leave to reinstate. Defense counsel objected and requested that the court question C.B. in chambers to determine whether she had simply forgotten about the incident that occurred 16 years ago, if she thought that the dismissal meant that she had not been “accused” of a crime, or if she had some other reason for not mentioning it. The trial court denied the request and excused C.B. for cause. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion and that, as a result, he is entitled to a new trial.

Voir dire in criminal cases is governed by Supreme Court Rule 431 (177 Ill. 2d R. 431). Prior to the adoption of this rule, this court held that the trial court bears primary responsibility for conducting the voir dire examination and, thus, the manner and scope of that examination rests within the discretion of that court. People v. Williams, 164 Ill. 2d 1, 16 (1994). See People v. Garstecki, 234 Ill. 2d 430, 437-38 (2009) (explaining significance of replacement of Supreme Court Rule 234 with Supreme Court Rule 431). Under this rule, the trial court’s discretion is guided by a preference for permitting direct inquiry of prospective jurors by the attorneys if such an opportunity is sought. Garstecki, 234 Ill. 2d at 444-45.

The present case, however, does not involve a request by an attorney to submit questions for voir dire or to directly question the venire. Rather, the present case involves the trial court’s decision to grant the State’s request to excuse a prospective juror for cause after voir dire has been concluded. “An abuse of the court’s discretion will be found only if, after a review of the record, it is determined that the conduct of the court thwarted the selection of an impartial jury.” Williams, 164 Ill. 2d at 16. Defendant argues that despite the trial court’s discretion in this matter, the “proper procedure” calls for an inquiry if it comes to the attention of the trial court, either while voir dire is in progress or when it has just been completed, that there are facts contradicting an answer given during voir dire. He argues further that when failure to adequately question a venire member is brought to the trial court’s attention in a timely manner, the proper remedy is a new trial. Defendant relies on two decisions of the appellate court for these propositions.

In People v. Green, 282 Ill. App. 3d 510 (1996), the court found an abuse of discretion where the trial court refused to reopen voir dire to reexamine three venire persons whose jury cards indicated that they had been victims of crimes, but who failed to so state in open court when the members of the venire were asked the question. Green, 282 Ill. App. 3d at 514. Because the defense had used its nine peremptory challenges to excuse other venire members, the three individuals in question were seated on the jury. Green, 282 Ill. App. 3d at 513. As a result, the defendant, who was charged with attempted murder and other crimes in connection with a shooting, may have been tried by a jury that included members who had been victims of one or more of the same crimes. Green, 282 Ill. App. 3d at 514. The appellate court noted that a “limited inquiry would have satisfied the purpose of voir dire to expose potential bias or prejudice, would have resulted in only a minor delay in jury selection and would have resolved the issue as to whether [the three individuals] were in fact crime victims, as well as the effect such involvement would have had on their ability to be impartial.” Green, 282 Ill. App. 3d at 514, citing People v. Mitchell, 121 Ill. App. 3d 193 (1984).

Defendant also relies on Mitchell, in which the appellate court reversed the defendant’s conviction for burglary on the basis that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a defense motion to reopen voir dire as to one of the jurors. Mitchell, 121 Ill. App. 3d at 196. During voir dire, the juror said that he had never been the victim of a crime. He was accepted as a juror and sworn before defense counsel learned that the prosecutor had background information regarding the venire members. This document revealed that the juror had been a victim of a burglary, the same crime for which the defendant was on trial. Mitchell, 121 Ill. App. 3d at 194. The court relied on this court’s decision in People v. Kurth, 34 Ill. 2d 387 (1966), overruled on other grounds in People v. Beardsley, 115 Ill. 2d 47 (1986), for the proposition that “where information showing prejudice or potential prejudice of a seated juror is brought to the attention of the court during or immediately after voir dire, the proper procedure would be further inquiry by the court.” Mitchell, 121 Ill. App. 3d at 194. The court concluded, further, that “issues involving the right to a fair trial by a panel of impartial jurors cannot be disposed of by the harmless error rule” and, thus, reversal of the defendant’s conviction was necessary. Mitchell, 121 Ill. App. 3d at 196.

Neither Green nor Mitchell offer any support for defendant’s position because both cases involved the seating of a juror or jurors who were potentially biased against the defendant. In the present case, no potentially biased juror was seated. Instead, a potential juror was excused for cause over a defense objection.

Williams is factually similar to the present case. Both on the juror information card and during vior dire, a prospective juror failed to disclose that she was then under court supervision “for a marijuana case.” Williams, 164 Ill. 2d at 15. The State asked that she be excused for cause and the defendant requested that she be questioned further about the marijuana case. Williams, 164 Ill. 2d at 16. The trial court excused her for cause and the defendant was subsequently found guilty of first degree murder for strangling a 97-year-old woman and of robbery for stealing the victim’s stereo set. The defendant was sentenced to death.

On appeal to this court, the defendant argued that the trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion when it excused the prospective juror for cause. This court noted that the “purpose of voir dire is to assure the selection of an impartial panel of jurors free from either bias or prejudice” and concluded that the record “in no way” suggested that excusing this individual for cause impeded the selection of an unbiased and impartial jury. Williams, 164 Ill. 2d at 16-17. Further, the “veracity of those who testify during voir dire is a matter lying solely within the sound discretion of the circuit court, and the decision to excuse a potential juror because of a reasonable belief that that person has been untruthful under oath is a question best left with that court.” Williams, 164 Ill. 2d at 17.

Defendant attempts to distinguish the facts of Williams, arguing that while there was “no chance” that the potential juror in Williams was mistaken about her criminal record because she was under court supervision at the time of trial, it is likely that C.B. either forgot or did not understand that she had an arrest record dating back 16 years. Thus, he argues, the trial court’s conclusion that she was untruthful rather than merely mistaken was not “reasonable,” as required by this court in Williams.

We do not find the trial court’s assessment of C.B.’s veracity to be unreasonable. We are reading the record and, thus, are not in a position to assess the credibility and demeanor of C.B. Instead, we must rely on the trial court’s superior ability to make these assessments. See People v. Harris, 225 Ill. 2d 1, 38-39 (2007), quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 426, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841, 853, 105 S. Ct. 844, 853 (1985) (“deference must be paid to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror”).

In addition, we note that when asked during voir dire whether the recent murder of her nephew would affect her ability to be an impartial juror, C.B. answered “yes.” This may have been, as defendant suggests, an inadvertent misstatement, because she later said that she would be able to follow the law. However, “ ‘[i]t is precisely in situations such as this, where the cold record suggests an apparent contradiction, that we defer to the circuit court’s discretion.’ ” Harris, 225 Ill. 2d at 38, quoting People v. Shaw, 186 Ill. 2d 301, 317 (1998).

II. Other-Crimes Evidence

Prior to trial, the State filed a motion to use proof and evidence of other crimes, specifically limited to evidence of the burglary of Callahan’s apartment. Although defendant was not charged with this burglary, it occurred in the same building on the same day as the murder. Property taken from Callahan’s apartment was found in the victim’s apartment and a cigarette butt containing defendant’s DNA was found in Callahan’s apartment. Thus, the State argued, evidence of the uncharged burglary was relevant to the murder charge. The State expressed its intent not to delve into any other residential burglaries that defendant was charged with or suspected of or any proceeds thereof. The motion was allowed.

Defendant filed a motion in limine, seeking to have portions of his videotaped statement redacted, specifically, any mention of other crimes he may have committed and his general explanation of the method or procedure he followed when committing burglaries. The State responded that his statement contained a full recollection of what he did on the day of the murder and, thus, any redaction would lead to gaps in the narrative. The trial court denied the motion, but directed that no comment or argument be made regarding defendant’s other crimes. The prosecutor responded that he had “no intention” of mentioning any of defendant’s other crimes and that the “other pending residential burglary charges will absolutely not come in in the State’s case in chief.” Further, the “police officers testifying will be directed not to talk about the other charges, other cases.”

In his posttrial motion, defendant argued that evidence of his commission of other crimes was improperly admitted. A hearing was held on his motion and the motion was denied. Defendant argues to this court that evidence of his commission of other crimes was improperly admitted in two instances. Thus, he argues, he is entitled to a new trial.

Evidence that a defendant has committed crimes other than the one for which he is on trial may not be admitted for the purpose of demonstrating his propensity to commit crimes. People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353, 364 (1991). Such evidence, however, may be admitted for a proper purpose such as proving modus operandi, intent, identity, motive, or absence of mistake. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d at 364-65. Even if relevant to a purpose other than showing the mere propensity to commit crime, evidence of other crimes may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d at 365. The admissibility of evidence at trial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and that court’s decision will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d at 364. Erroneous admission of other-crimes evidence calls for reversal only if the evidence was “a material factor in the defendant’s conviction such that, without the evidence, the verdict likely would have been different.” People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 339 (2000).

A. Detective’s Testimony

At trial, Detective William Cotter of the Oak Park police department testified that he and Detective William Ballard brought defendant to the police station for questioning. After processing, including the collection of a buccal swab for DNA comparison, defendant was placed in an interview room, where he was interviewed by Cotter and Detective Juan Paladines. The following exchange occurred:

“Prosecutor: Did either you or Detective Juan Paladines introduce yourselves to the Defendant?

Cotter: Yes, we both introduced ourselves.

Prosecutor: How did you do that? What did you say?

Cotter: Just that my name, Detective Cotter with the Oak Park Police Department. Detective Paladines was actually the lead investigator. He introduced himself also.”

The State’s next witness was Detective Paladines, who testified that he was the lead detective in the investigation of the murder of Catherine McAvinchey. Paladines testified that he saw other detectives bring defendant into the Detective Bureau. He asked his immediate superior “if we could put Rodney in the back for a little bit to let him cool down.” Having obtained permission to do so, he placed defendant in a holding cell. Eventually, Paladines escorted defendant from the holding cell to an interview room. The following exchange occurred:

“Prosecutor: All right. Did you introduce yourself at that time to the Defendant?

Paladines: I introduced myself initially when Rodney first came in.

Prosecutor: How did you introduce yourself?

Paladines: I said, ‘Hi, Rodney. How you doing. I haven’t seen you in a long time.’

Prosecutor: Did you tell him who you were?

Paladines: Yes.

Prosecutor: Did you tell him—

Defense Counsel: Objection.

COURT: Sustained.

Prosecutor: Did you tell him who you were?

Paladines: Yes.”

In his posttrial motion, defendant argued that the prosecutor acted intentionally to elicit information from which the jury would understand that the detective knew the defendant from past encounters and infer that he was “a criminal.” At the hearing on the motion, the prosecutor explained that she did not intend to elicit prejudicial information by asking the question. She did not anticipate that the detective would answer in this manner. Her purpose in asking the question was to demonstrate to the jury that the defendant knew to whom he was speaking. The trial court found this explanation credible.

In this appeal, defendant argues that the question was a deliberate and successful attempt to introduce prejudicial information to the jury. He asserts that the question was designed to elicit a response that revealed defendant was known to the police and, by implication, that he was a prior offender. Defendant also argues that the only questions that such an answer might have been relevant to — his motive and intent to commit burglary— were not in dispute because the defense strategy was to admit the burglary while denying the murder. Thus, the only purpose served by the question and answer was to demonstrate defendant’s propensity to commit crimes. As a result, the prejudicial nature of the statement necessarily outweighed its relevance.

The State responds that the prosecutor’s question was not a deliberate attempt to elicit information about other crimes and that the detective’s answer to the question was unexpected. Further, the State argues that any error was cured because the trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection following that answer and later instructed the jury to “disregard questions and exhibits which are withdrawn or to which objections were sustained.” Finally, the State argues that any such error was not a factor in defendant’s convictions, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Defendant replies that the error was not cured by sustaining his objection or by the jury instruction because the jury would not have known which question and answer it was to disregard.

In People v. Bryant, 113 Ill. 2d 497 (1986), this court considered a similar situation, after having granted the defendant a new trial on other grounds. The defendant was charged with the attempted burglary of a service station. Bryant, 113 Ill. 2d at 500. A police officer testified that he was sent to the location in response to a call from a neighbor. He saw the defendant running away from the building and called for him to stop. The defendant continued running and jumped a fence. The officer shouted at him again and the defendant then stopped and returned to the station, where he was placed under arrest. Bryant, 113 Ill. 2d at 500-01.

On cross-examination, it was revealed that the officer called the defendant by name when the officer said “I told him to freeze. He kept on going. I called him by name and I told him I would shoot.” Bryant, 113 Ill. 2d at 514. Although the officer’s use of defendant’s name was inadvertently elicited on cross-examination, the prosecutor made use of this fact twice during closing argument. Bryant, 113 Ill. 2d at 514.

The record did not reveal how the officer happened to know the defendant’s name, but this court noted the implication that might have been “conveyed by testimony of this nature” and instructed that, on retrial, such a statement by the officer would be “better avoided, unless somehow relevant.” Bryant, 113 Ill. 2d at 514.

Similarly, in People v. Stover, 89 Ill. 2d 189 (1982), the defendant was granted a new trial on other grounds. He was charged with resisting or obstructing a peace officer. Police officers went to the defendant’s apartment to arrest him. They announced their purpose and the defendant ran to the rear of the apartment. An officer pursued him and attempted to place him in handcuffs. A scuffle ensued and the officer eventually subdued the defendant. Stover, 89 Ill. 2d at 192.

At trial, the officer testified that on the day of the arrest, he was wearing his uniform, official hat, and deputy sheriffs badge. He was also wearing an equipment belt that contained a holster and weapon, handcuffs, and nightstick. Stover, 89 Ill. 2d at 192. This portion of the officer’s testimony was relevant to the knowledge element of the offense charged. Stover, 89 Ill. 2d at 196. However, after eliciting this testimony, the prosecutor asked the officer whether he had been acquainted with the defendant prior to this incident and the officer answered, “Yes.” Stover, 89 Ill. 2d at 192-93. The opinion does not indicate whether there was an objection to this question.

On appeal, defendant argued that the question and answer improperly provided a basis for the jury to infer that he had previously engaged in criminal conduct. This court noted that the defendant’s knowledge that the person at his door was a uniformed police officer seeking to arrest him had already been clearly established before this question was asked. Stover, 89 Ill. 2d at 196. Because there was “no apparent reason why the prosecutor would inquire into defendant’s previous acquaintance with [the officer] unless an implication of prior criminal activity was intended,” this court directed that such inquiry not recur on retrial. Stover, 89 Ill. 2d at 196.

Defendant argues that these two cases should lead us to conclude that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis of the prosecutor’s question and Detective Paladines’s answer. While we acknowledge that the answer contained information from which a reasonable jury might infer that defendant had a criminal record, we do not find either case persuasive. In both cases, the defendants had already been granted a new trial on unrelated grounds. Our discussion of this issue was dicta, intended only to guide the trial court and the State on retrial. We did not suggest that any such error was sufficient to require a new trial. In addition, the prosecutor’s conduct in each case was a deliberate attempt to call attention to the defendant’s familiarity with the police. In the present case, the trial court found the prosecutor’s explanation credible. We note that she asked essentially the same question of both Cotter and Paladines for the same purpose — to demonstrate that the defendant knew that persons to whom he was speaking, neither of whom were in uniform, were police detectives.

The defense theory of the case was that defendant committed the two burglaries at 936 Washington Boulevard on July 31, 2003, but that he left with the stolen property before Catherine McAvinchey returned home and was killed by an unknown person. This theory accounted for all of the physical evidence that implicated defendant. In effect, the defense theory was that defendant was an experienced burglar, who was careful to ascertain that no one was present at any home or apartment he entered and that he had followed his usual pattern on the day of the murder. In addition, counsel attempted to portray defendant’s incriminating statements to the police as the product of fear or manipulation, in an effort to persuade the jury to disregard them. He suggested, for example, that the lack of a videotape of defendant’s arrival at the Oak Park police department might indicate that he was mistreated by the transporting officers.

Defense counsel’s cross-examination of Cotter began with the question: “That day [September 17, 2003], you went and got Rodney Adkins from the Cook County Jail where he was staying on another matter, isn’t that right?” The prosecutor asked for a sidebar to note that defense counsel was “eliciting from our witness the fact that his client was in jail on an unrelated matter.” During this cross-examination, counsel mentioned the fact that defendant was taken from the Cook County jail to be questioned regarding the Oak Park murder at least seven more times. Thus, the jury was already aware that defendant was familiar to law enforcement before Paladines ever took the stand and that awareness was produced by the defense strategy, not by the prosecution.

Given this line of questioning of Cotter and defense counsel’s concession that defendant burglarized the victim’s apartment on the day of the murder, the effect of Paladines’s answer to the prosecutor’s question — if indeed the jury made the inference of prior criminal conduct — is minuscule. Thus, any error in the admission of the detective’s answer was not a material factor in defendant’s convictions. See Hall, 194 Ill. 2d at 339. We, therefore, need not consider the State’s assertion that the sustained objection and the jury instruction were sufficient to cure any prejudice resulting from the question and Paladines’s answer.

B. Defendant’s Videotaped Statement

Defense counsel objected to the admission of the entire videotaped statement, arguing that portions of the tape were irrelevant and prejudicial. The trial court overruled the objection, finding that the evidence of other crimes was admissible because it was “part of the continuing narrative of the event giving rise to the offense or, in other words, intertwined with the offense charged.” The trial court noted that this result was consistent with the appellate court’s decision in People v. Slater, 393 Ill. App. 3d 977 (2009) (applying a continuing-narrative exception to the general rule barring admission of other-crimes evidence).

At trial, before the videotape was played for the jury, the trial court noted that it had previously denied defendant’s motion in limine to bar parts of the videotaped statement in which defendant spoke of other burglaries on the basis that “it was the defendant’s statement *** and the entire statement should come into the record.” The court stated that it had watched the objected-to portion of the tape and found that the “particular testimony is sufficient to show intent and motive, and therefore balancing it on that issue, between its probative value and prejudicial, I believe the probative value would take the position and therefore for those two reasons, I will allow it in.”

Defendant argues that the portion of his videotaped statement in which he recounted how he and his girlfriend would commit burglaries was irrelevant and prejudicial and should not have been shown to the jury. He acknowledges that such other-crimes evidence may be used for the purpose of showing intent and motive, but argues that his intent and motive to burglarize the McAvinchey apartment were not at issue. The only possible use the jury might have made of this evidence, he asserts, is to convict him of murder based on his mere propensity to commit burglaries. He also distinguishes Slater, arguing that the other crimes referred to in his statement are not sufficiently connected to the charged crime to be admitted under the “continuing-narrative exception” to the propensity rule.

The State responds that the trial court’s reliance on Slater was correct and that defendant’s “brief discussion of the procedures he and Norwood usually employed when they burglarized homes was part of defendant’s continuing narrative of how he broke into the victim’s home and was in the middle of burglarizing it when the victim returned home and he killed her.” In addition, the State argues that a defendant’s intent and motive are relevant even when not controverted. According to the State, defendant’s description of his usual method of committing burglaries while avoiding getting caught showed that his continuing motive was to obtain property to sell for cash so that he could buy drugs. Finally, the State asserts that even if admission of this small portion of the tape was error, it was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

In Slater, the defendant was charged with the first degree murder of one victim and domestic battery of a second victim, his girlfriend. Slater, 393 Ill. App. 3d at 978-79. The evidence showed that on the day of the killing, the defendant was angry with his girlfriend because he thought she had been out with someone else the night before. He punched her in the nose while she was driving her car, causing it to bleed so much that she could not see to drive. Slater, 393 Ill. App. 3d at 979. They returned to the duplex they shared so that she could clean her bloodied face. Shortly thereafter, two men arrived in a car. The driver exited the car and approached defendant and his girlfriend on the porch, offering to sell drugs. The driver did not leave the premises when ordered to do so by defendant, who retrieved a shotgun from the trunk of his car. Defendant fired the shotgun in the air and the driver turned to leave. As he walked back to his car, defendant fired again, hitting the passenger who had remained in the car. He died as a result of a shotgun wound to his face. Slater, 393 Ill. App. 3d at 979-80.

On appeal, the defendant argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the joinder of the two offenses. The appellate court resolved this issue by observing that even if the domestic battery charge had been severed from the murder charge, the State could have presented evidence of the domestic battery at the murder trial “under the continuing-narrative exception to the proscription against the admission of other-crimes evidence.” Slater, 393 Ill. App. 3d at 992. Thus, even if defense counsel had successfully objected to the two charges being tried together, the jury would have heard about the domestic violence incident.

Neither Slater nor the parties offer any authority from this court regarding the existence or the scope of a continuing-narrative exception to the propensity rule.

In the case of People v. Pargone, 327 Ill. 463 (1927), the defendant and two other men forced their way into an apartment occupied by two women. They demanded money and took a watch from one of the women and then tied the women’s hands and feet and laid them on the bed. They also bound a young boy they found hiding in the bathroom and pushed him under the bed. After ransacking the apartment, they took clothing and other personal items and packed them in boxes and suitcases. Eventually, they cut the ropes binding the women and sexually assaulted them. The defendant “had intercourse” with one of the women and “committed the crime against nature” with the other woman. The men then left, carrying away the stolen property. Pargone, 327 Ill. at 465. The defendant was convicted of the rape of one of the women.

He argued on appeal that the trial court erred by admitting evidence that he also assaulted the second woman because this was a distinct substantive offense other than the offense with which he was charged. Par-gone, 327 Ill. at 468. This court held that the rule excluding evidence that a defendant has committed other crimes “applies only to disconnected crimes. If evidence offered has a tendency to prove the crime charged it is competent even though it also proves a separate, distinct offense.” Pargone, 327 Ill. at 468-69. The key fact was that “[a]ll the acts were part of one transaction.” Pargone, 327 Ill. at 470.

This court used the phrase “continuing narrative” for the first time in People v. Marose, 10 Ill. 2d 340, 343 (1957). In that case, this court ruled that the trial court did not err by admitting evidence that a defendant who was charged with rape was driving a stolen car when he abducted the victim or that he forced her to submit to other sexual acts after the rape. “The facts concerning the stolen car and other sexual acts are all a part of the continuing narrative which concern the circumstances attending the entire transaction and they do not concern separate, distinct and disconnected crimes.” Marose, 10 Ill. 2d at 343. See also People v. Walls, 33 Ill. 2d 394, 397 (1965) (evidence that rape defendant and accomplices stole the automobile in which they drove the victim home was properly admitted as part of continuing narrative of “ ‘circumstances attending the entire transaction’ ”), quoting Marose, 10 Ill. 2d at 343; People v. Johnson, 34 Ill. 2d 202, 206 (1966) (in trial of defendant charged with stealing from a sleeping train passenger, testimony that he stole from another sleeping passenger on the same train was part of continuing narrative).

In contrast, other-crimes evidence may not be admitted under the continuing-narrative exception, even when the crimes occur in close proximity, if the crimes are distinct and “undertaken for different reasons at a different place at a separate time.” People v. Lindgren, 79 Ill. 2d 129, 139-40 (1980) (granting new trial to defendant charged with the murder of his girlfriend’s grandfather where State admitted evidence that he set fire to his ex-wife’s house six blocks away and one to two hours after the victim was robbed and killed).

Evidence regarding the burglary of the Callahan apartment was properly admitted in this case because it was part of the continuing narrative of the charged murder. However, defendant is correct that his admission that he would “go out from time to time and burglarize” and his description of the technique he regularly employed to do so do not fit this exception. His earlier burglaries were not relevant to the circumstances on the day of the murder.

However, we conclude that even though defendant objected to the admission of these statements, they were relevant for a purpose other than showing his mere propensity to commit crimes. These statements were consistent with and tended to support the theory of the defense — that he committed the burglary that day, but left before the murder occurred. Defendant cannot complain that he was prejudiced by his own mention of his other crimes when his admission that he burglarized residences from time to time and had developed means of avoiding detection tended to show that as a burglar, he successfully avoided contact with the residents of the homes he entered. We conclude, therefore, that it was not error for the trial court to admit the challenged portions of defendant’s videotaped statement over his objection.

Even if admission of such statements is error, such an error does not necessarily entitle defendant to a new trial. If improperly admitted other-crimes evidence was not a material factor in defendant’s conviction, reversal is not required. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d at 339.

We find it highly unlikely that the jury was improperly influenced by defendant’s brief account of his typical approach to burglary. If anything, his explanation of the efforts he would take to ensure that he would not encounter anyone at home during one of his crimes is consistent with his claim that he is merely a burglar, not a murderer. Further, the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. Thus, even if it was error to admit portions of defendant’s statement, he is not entitled to a new trial on this basis

III. Eligibility for the Death Penalty

A defendant who is convicted of murder is eligible for the death penalty if he is over the age of 18, the murdered individual was killed in the course of another felony, and the defendant actually killed the murdered individual. 720 ILCS 5/9 — 1(b)(6)(a)(i) (West 2002).

At the eligibility hearing, the State presented a certified copy of defendant’s birth certificate, showing his date of birth as July 29, 1963, making him 40 years old at the time of the murder. The State also presented certified copies of the verdict forms from the guilt phase of the trial, showing that defendant had been convicted of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9 — 1(a) (West 2002)), home invasion (720 ILCS 5/12 — 11(a)(2) (West 2002)), and residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19 — 3(a) (West 2002)). The prosecutor argued that the evidence at trial proved that defendant was the individual who killed the victim and that after the killing he removed certain items of the victim’s property from the apartment.

The trial court found that the State met its burden of proof to show that defendant was 18 years of age or older at the time of the murder. Further, the evidence adduced at trial showed that defendant “in fact, committed the murder, and that, while committing the murder, connected to that murder, were the additional crimes of home invasion, a felony, and residential burglary, a felony.” The prerequisites for eligibility for the death penalty “having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” the trial court found defendant eligible for death penalty sentencing.

Defendant argues in his brief to this court that the conviction for home invasion must be vacated because it was based on the “same physical acts” as the murder and that, as a. result, the murder was not committed “in the course of” a separate felony of home invasion. At oral argument, however, counsel conceded that defendant’s conviction for home invasion is proper under our decision in People v. McLaurin, 184 Ill. 2d 58 (1998) (home invasion is not a lesser-included offense of intentional murder). He argued, instead, that the manner in which the State charged the two crimes in the indictment (alleging that defendant “beat and stabbed” the victim causing her death and that he “beat and stabbed” the victim intentionally causing injury) means that the home invasion conviction based on the same charged conduct may not be used as an aggravating factor at the eligibility phase of a capital sentencing hearing.

He argues further that under the standard established by this court in People v. Hattery, 109 Ill. 2d 449 (1985), counsel was ineffective for conceding at trial that he committed the felony of residential burglary.

Defendant’s commission of murder in the course of either felony provides a sufficient basis for the trial court’s finding that defendant was eligible for the death penalty. See People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306, 362-63 (2000). Thus, if either of defendant’s two arguments fails, the other argument need not be addressed by this court. We choose to address the issue regarding counsel’s performance.

Generally, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is analyzed under the two-part test set out by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 693, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984). However, the Strickland court noted that some circumstances are so likely to cause prejudice to the accused that prejudice will be presumed. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 696, 104 S. Ct. at 2067, citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657, 104 S. Ct. 2039 (1984). Where counsel “entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, then there has been a denial of Sixth Amendment rights that makes the adversary process itself presumptively unreliable.” Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659, 80 L. Ed. 2d at 668, 104 S. Ct. at 2047.

This court applied the Cronic analysis in Hattery, finding that the defendant had been denied effective assistance of counsel. Hattery was convicted of the murders of a woman and her two children. He had been ordered by Mister, a leader in the street gang to which both men belonged, to remain with the victims in their apartment while Mister took their husband and father on an unsuccessful search to buy drugs. Mister told the defendant that if he did not return in five minutes, he knew “what to do.” Hattery understood that he was to kill the woman and her children. He waited longer than five minutes, but he did follow Mister’s instructions. Hattery, 109 Ill. 2d at 453-55. The evidence against Hattery was overwhelming, and included a transcribed statement in which he admitted the murders. Hattery, 109 Ill. 2d at 454-55.

Defense counsel conceded during opening argument that Hattery had killed the three victims, but argued that he did so because Mister would kill his mother and sisters if he refused to follow Mister’s orders. Hattery, 109 Ill. 2d at 458. Counsel told the members of the jury that he did not expect them to find his client not guilty of murder and that he did expect them to find him eligible for the death penalty. Counsel argued that “the only question facing” the jury was whether to impose the death penalty on a killer who was trying to save the lives of his own family members. Hattery, 109 Ill. 2d at 459.

During trial, defense counsel attempted to develop, through cross-examination, evidence that the defendant was compelled by Mister to kill the victims. Otherwise, counsel presented no theory of the defense, presented no evidence, and chose not to make a closing statement. Hattery, 109 Ill. 2d at 459. The defendant’s attorneys also conceded that his statement confessing to the murders was truthful and mentioned at several points during the guilt phase of trial that this was a “death penalty case.” The prosecutor’s closing argument emphasized the fact that defense couns