{ "id": 3603712, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN N. PRANTE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Prante", "decision_date": "1986-10-03", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201483\u20140837", "first_page": "1039", "last_page": "1065", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "147 Ill. App. 3d 1039" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "489 N.E.2d 1111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 Ill. App. 3d 1001", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3532952 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/140/1001-01" ] }, { "cite": "487 N.E.2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "667" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 Ill. App. 3d 813", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3567913 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "817" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/139/0813-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 N.E.2d 568", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ill. App. 3d 750", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2488975 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/41/0750-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 N.E.2d 1350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 3d 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2721079 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/43/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 18", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168882 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "424 N.E.2d 1298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 Ill. App. 3d 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3100653 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/99/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 N.E.2d 689", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 Ill. App. 3d 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3395059 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/53/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "420 N.E.2d 482", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Ill. App. 3d 792", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3115878 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/95/0792-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 N.E.2d 752", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. App. 3d 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2708823 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/31/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 N.E.2d 12", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill. 2d 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2829190 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/30/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "274 N.E.2d 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 Ill. 2d 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2910573 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/49/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 N.E.2d 804", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. 2d 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5415438 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/60/0037-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 N.E.2d 261", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 Ill. 2d 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3125562 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/109/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "485 N.E.2d 381", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 Ill. 2d 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3129999 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/108/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ill. 2d 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2933485 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "283" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/54/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ill. 2d 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2786129 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "370" }, { "page": "370-71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/11/0360-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ill. 2d 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2912984 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "307" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/50/0302-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5454543 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/69/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ill. 2d 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5444213 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "129-30" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/72/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "387 N.E.2d 331", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2991135 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/75/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1873, "char_count": 65843, "ocr_confidence": 0.788, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4598118191133168e-07, "percentile": 0.6571081943387433 }, "sha256": "64eab5c1abb91866bdb36caacb1eceffa6b2600295b6f4b3a85379a16f02df45", "simhash": "1:ea2671dcdf732fd3", "word_count": 11757 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:34:28.954445+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN N. PRANTE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE JONES\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a three-week jury trial in June and July of 1983, the defendant, John Prante, was found guilty of the murder of Karla Brown and sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a term of 75 years. He appeals, presenting six issues for review: (1) whether the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt \u201cin that the prosecution failed to prove criminal agency on the part of the defendant or that he committed any act which caused or contributed to the death of the deceased\u201d; (2) whether it was prejudicial error for the court to allow the People\u2019s instruction No. 7, based upon Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction, Criminal, No. 3.02 (2d ed. 1981) (hereinafter cited as IPI Criminal 2d) without the \u201cbracketed\u201d material since the prosecution\u2019s case was based on circumstantial evidence; (3) whether \u201c[t]he prosecution\u2019s tactic of improperly introducing and indicating to the jury in opening statement and under it\u2019s [s-ic] case-in-chief, the defendant\u2019s prior extrajudicial statements as substantive evidence rather than for the limited purpose of impeaching testimony of witnesses, denied the defendant a fair trial and due process of law in accordance with Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution\u201d; (4) whether \u201c[t]he prosecutor\u2019s conduct during the course of the trial compounded the aforementioned error and resulted only in inflaming the jury\u201d; (5) whether expert testimony concerning bite marks should not have been permitted \u201cbecause of its exclusionary nature and its improper conclusiveness of the guilt of the defendant\u201d; and (6) whether the defendant\u2019s motion for a change of venue should have been allowed \u201cas a result of the use of the press as an investigative tool by the prosecutor.\u201d In his reply brief the defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The State moved to strike those portions of his reply brief raising that issue. The State\u2019s motion and the defendant\u2019s objection thereto were taken with the case.\nAt trial the State called over 50 witnesses. On June 21, 1978, at about 5:45 p.m. the police department of the city of Wood River received a call to come to 979 Acton concerning the death of Karla Brown, who, with her boyfriend, had moved to that address the day before. The seminude body of this 22-year-old woman had been found in the laundry room in the basement of the house some minutes earlier by her boyfriend, Mark Fair, returning from a day at work, and a friend, Thomas Feigenbaum, who was at that time using his truck to help Mark Fair move some large items to the house on Acton. The victim, about 4 feet 11 inches tall and weighing about 100 pounds, was found with her head and shoulders immersed in water in a large metal lard can that had been used to store winter clothes. Her hands were tied behind her back with a white extension cord from which the ends had been cut. Her stiffened body was bent over the barrel at the waist. Nude below the waist, she was wearing a heavy sweater that was buttoned and that she usually wore only for social occasions in cold weather. Two men\u2019s socks, tied together, were tied tightly around her neck. She had a large gash on her forehead, a cut on her nose, and a large gash on her chin. The area where the socks had been tied around her neck was bruised. The socks had been kept in a dresser drawer in a bedroom upstairs, the extension cord had been packed in a box in the basement, and the clothes in the lard can had been dumped on the basement floor. A couch in the basement was blood soaked, and blood was splattered on the basement floor. The bloodied cushion was heavily saturated with water. On a coffee table near the couch was a blood-stained tampon. At one end of the couch a stand of TV trays was overturned. A coffee pot from the couple\u2019s coffee maker was found in the rafters of the laundry room. The entrance at the rear of the house leads directly to the basement.\nThe police secured the crime scene. All of the State\u2019s witnesses who had been at the scene testified that, with the exception of Mark Fair and Thomas Feigenbaum, only medical and law-enforcement personnel were or could have been at the scene. According to their testimony, the defendant was not there at any time and could not, because of security, have been anywhere in the house at 979 Acton after the police arrived. No information was distributed to the public. The occupant of the house next door at 989 Acton was Paul Main, a friend of the defendant. One of the police officers, Charles Nonn, who arrived at the scene at about 6:20 p.m., had known the defendant for four or five years prior to the time of the murder and testified that he saw the defendant standing outside with Paul Main when the witness arrived to investigate the crime. Although the crime scene was processed for fingerprints, those identified, with the apparent exception of one, were the victim\u2019s. No fingerprints of the defendant were found at the scene. There was testimony that in such a case the police would expect to find more fingerprints than were actually found.\nThe State called as witnesses persons who had spoken with the victim on the telephone on the morning of June 21, 1978. At about 9:30 a.m. that day the victim had called Jamie Hale, a friend, and seemed to be fine. When Jamie Hale tried to call the victim that same day at about 2:30 p.m., she got no answer. At about 10 a.m. that day the victim had called Debra Davis, who left shortly thereafter to visit the victim. When she reached the victim\u2019s residence at about 11 a.m., no one answered either the front or the back door, although the victim\u2019s van was at the house. She tried to telephone the victim at about 11:45 a.m. or 12 p.m. and repeatedly throughout the afternoon but got no answer. At about 9 a.m. that day the victim called Helen Fair, the mother of Mark Fair, who returned her call between10 and 11 a.m. The conversation was interrupted by the victim\u2019s saying, \u201cHelen, someone is at the door, and I\u2019ll call you back.\u201d When the witness did not hear from the victim, she tried to call her between 12 and 12:30 p.m., but there was no answer.\nEric Moses, who was 11 years old at the time of trial and 6 years old at the time of the murder, testified that he had lived in the house at 979 Acton and that on June 21, 1978, while his grandmother was taking him to a dental appointment in the area, he forgot to tell her where the dentist\u2019s office was. To turn around she used the driveway at 979 Acton, at which time, about 10:45 a.m., the witness saw a woman, matching the description of the victim, and a man talking in the driveway. Edna Moses, Eric\u2019s grandmother, testified similarly and stated that, as she was turning around, the woman started to walk toward the house.\nOn the date in question Edna Vancil, the aunt of Paul Main and his sister, Elizabeth Westbrook, lived across the street from the residences of the victim and Paul Main. The witness testified that on that morning Elizabeth Westbrook visited her, having arrived between 9:30 and 10 a.m. in the defendant\u2019s car. The defendant, she said, went to Paul Main\u2019s house and sat on the front porch with Paul Main until about 11 a.m., when the two \u201cdisappeared\u201d until almost noon, at which time they resumed sitting on the porch until about 3 p.m., when the defendant left in his car. She testified that she did not see him or his car the rest of that day.\nJohn Scroggins, who knew both the victim and the defendant, testified that on the afternoon before the murder, he and the defendant had been at Paul Main\u2019s, at which time he introduced the victim and the defendant, who afterward on that same day expressed considerable sexual interest in the victim.\nAccording to testimony by an employee of the Shell Refinery, seemingly located in the St. Louis, Missouri, area, the defendant had submitted an employment application there in person sometime between 8 a.m. and noon on June 21, 1978. On an employment application to Aereo Industrial Gases dated June 19, 1978, the defendant listed as his first reference Spencer Bond.\nThe State put on evidence that the victim had been a student at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville in 1975 or 1976 and was a student there for three years.\nIn the summer of 1980 Alva Busch, a crime-scene technician with the Department of Law Enforcement, was investigating the case and felt that two new techniques, unavailable at the time of the murder, might aid the investigation: green laser, used with respect to fingerprints; and image enhancement, which was being used to identify instruments that had made wounds and to identify bite marks. In mid-August of 1980 police sent Dr. Homer Campbell of the University of New Mexico all of the photographs they had of the crime scene. Dr. Campbell wanted the TV trays and tray rack hand carried to him and found blood on the bottom of the rack. Dr. Campbell indicated that certain marks, in the area of the victim\u2019s right collarbone, were bite marks. Prior to this time no one who had examined the body or worked on the case had been particularly familiar with bite marks or had thought that there were any on the body of Karla Brown. In the spring of 1982, according to Agent Randall Rushing of the Department of Law Enforcement, an investigation plan was developed to take photographs of the crime scene to a \u201cprofile man\u201d by the name of Douglas, at the FBI Academy at Quantico, who provides psychological profiles of criminal suspects. At that time the investigation focused on Paul Main and had not yet focused on the defendant. As a result of the meeting with Mr. Douglas, the police decided to proceed, with the agreement of the victim\u2019s family, to exhume the victim\u2019s body. The police believed that \u201cafter four years the killer had become complacent, and a high profile was developed in order to make the killer nervous.\u201d To promote the plan \u201c[a] high amount of coverage profile by the media was generated.\u201d Articles appeared in newspapers of the area concerning the impending exhumation, the existence of bite marks on the body, and technological advances in forensic science since the time of the murder. On June 1, 1982, Karla Brown\u2019s body was exhumed and a second autopsy performed.\nAt the first autopsy on June 22, 1978, Dr. Harry Parks, the pathologist who performed it, observed two large lacerations on the face, a fracture of the jaw at the tip of the chin, and several bruises, especially severe around the throat and consistent with strangulation, which was, in his opinion, the cause of death. He estimated the time of death to have been about six hours before the body was found at about 5:45 p.m. The time of death could, he said, vary by as much as two to three hours. Because he observed no water in the lungs, he was of the opinion that the victim was not breathing at the time her head was submerged in the water. He palpated no skull fractures and at the time noticed nothing indicative of human bite marks. He testified that at the time he did the autopsy he knew very little about bite marks and had heard very little about their usefulness as evidence.\nOn June 2, 1982, following exhumation of the body, Dr. Mary Case performed the second autopsy. She found that the jawbone had been broken in two places by a single blow and that the skull had been injured in three places by three blows of significant force with a blunt instrument. A blow to the back of the head had caused a fracture of the strongest portion of the bone of the head. The witness was of the opinion that the cause of death was drowning because of the presence of foam around the nose, indicating that the victim had had respiratory movements under the water. The witness was of the further opinion that the victim had been sexually assaulted. She testified that bite marks in the area of the right collarbone had been inflicted at about the time of death when the other injuries were inflicted and not, for example, two days earlier or even one hour earlier, because microscopic slides of that tissue showed fresh hemorrhage in the subcutaneous tissue with no inflammation.\nAgent Thomas O\u2019Connor of the Department of Law Enforcement testified that on July 1, 1982, at about 3 p.m. he had interviewed Vickie White at her place of employment; at about 5:45 p.m. that same day he had interviewed Mark White, her husband; after 10:30 p.m. that same day he had talked with Roxanne Bond; and later that same evening he had interviewed her husband, Spencer Bond.\nVickie White testified that she had known the defendant for about eight years. She said that not more than three days after the murder of Karla Brown had occurred she and her husband, Mark, were visiting during the weekend with Spencer and Roxanne Bond in the kitchen of their house in East Alton when the defendant came in and began to talk about Karla Brown, saying that he had known her when he had gone to \u201cSIU.\u201d The witness testified that \u201cPrante had stated that she was murdered and that her body was down in her basement, and she was in a curled up position, and she had teeth marks on her body.\u201d When he made the remark about the teeth marks, she said, \u201c[h]e put his arm over his shoulder.\u201d She stated further that the defendant had\n\u201csaid that he had been there that day \u2014 the same day she was murdered. Prante said that she [sic] was there the same day that she was murdered, and he talked about, you know, her body being in the basement and she was in a curled up position. She had teeth marks on her body, and that\u2019s when he pointed over his shoulder. And he \u2014 he had made the statement that he had to get his story straight and he had to get out of town because the police were looking for him.\u201d\nThe witness stated that the defendant had \u201csaid he had to get his story straight with Paul Main because they was [sic] in some trouble and that he had to get out of the State.\u201d The defendant said he had been at Karla Brown\u2019s house \u201cearlier that day,\u201d that she was all right when he left, and that he was supposed to go back to her house. The witness said that she had been walking in and out of the room during the conversation but that she had heard most of it. She testified that newspaper articles concerning the exhumation had brought her attention to the matter. She said she had not read any articles about the murder until she read those concerning the exhumation and had heard about the murder, at first, from the defendant and, later, at work. In 1978, she said, when she had heard the conversation, she was unaware of its significance with respect to the investigation.\nMark White testified that he had known the defendant for about seven years and would see him \u201c[v]ery rarely, maybe three, four times a year.\u201d The witness had heard about the murder a day or two after it had occurred. He said that within three days after he had heard about the murder he and his wife were talking in the Bond\u2019s kitchen on a weekend when the defendant came by. The defendant brought up the subject of the murder and said of it \u201cthat he had been over to [Karla Brown\u2019s] house and they were just talking about her; that he knew her, and he was supposed to go back later on in the evening; and I don\u2019t know if he ever did or not.\u201d The defendant stated that \u201che was going to have to leave town because of something that had happened, and he was afraid he was going to jail for it.\u201d The defendant said that he was going to be questioned because of her murder and that he was afraid he could have been the last one to see her alive. The witness indicated that during the conversation he would leave the kitchen to go to the bathroom and to check on the children as was necessary. He said that in 1978 he attached no significance to the conversation and told no one about it until the police approached him in 1982.\nRoxanne Bond testified that she had known the defendant eight or nine years and that he had been \u201ca good friend of ours,\u201d coming by their house \u201cevery couple of days or so.\u201d She had read about the Brown murder in the newspaper and had not heard the defendant\u2019s conversation in her home because she was outside with her child. She did, however, once hear him say that he \u201chad to get his story straight.\u201d\nSpencer Bond testified that he had known the defendant for 9 or 10 years, the two having met at Lewis and Clark Community College. At the time of the murder he usually saw the defendant about once a day, either at his house or the defendant\u2019s. The witness first heard about Karla Brown\u2019s murder from the defendant on what he recalled as a Friday night, \u201c[a]t the most three days\u201d after the murder occurred. Vickie and Mark White were in the kitchen of his house with him and his wife, Roxanne, when the defendant came over. The defendant said he had been at Paul Main\u2019s house \u201cthat day\u201d and \u201chad talked to Karla Brown about two or three that afternoon, was supposed to go back and see her because he might have a possible date with her.\u201d The defendant stated that he had talked with Karla Brown at her house. The defendant said further that \u201cthe girl was in a curled position stuck in a pail of water down in the basement.\u201d The witness testified that when the defendant told him that fact, he, that is, the witness, had no idea that that was what had happened. The defendant said that \u201cshe had teeth marks on her shoulder where she had been bitten on her left shoulder,\u201d gesturing as he made the statement. The defendant said also that the victim had been tied up. The witness stated that the defendant said that on the day of the killing \u201che was over at Paul Main\u2019s house. They were over there getting drunk and getting high. Paul Main had been painting the house next door.\u201d The defendant stated that \u201che had put in a few applications at work; that he had talked to Karla Brown over at her house.\u201d Of the police the defendant said that they \u201cwere over the place and that they really fowled [sic] it up really bad; that they really didn\u2019t know what they were doing; that there was everybody in and around the place even people that shouldn\u2019t have been there.\u201d The defendant stated that he and \u201cPaul had to get their stories together as to what they were doing that day\u201d for the reason that \u201cthey didn\u2019t want to get conflicting statements of what their statements were so the police wouldn\u2019t be able to crack his alibi.\u201d Prior to the victim\u2019s death the defendant had mentioned her name \u201cseveral times\u201d to the witness \u201cwithin a few days to a few weeks before it happened.\u201d The witness first told the police about these statements by the defendant on June 1, 1982, when the police came to talk to him. Prior to his interview by the police he had not talked to Vickie or Mark White about the defendant\u2019s statements. At the time he talked with the police the witness said he \u201cdidn\u2019t think I knew anything\u201d and that before that time he did not realize the significance of the information he had.\nThereafter the witness participated in a wiretap of the defendant conducted by the police on June 2, 1982, and again on June 4, 1982, after the defendant had said he wanted to speak with Spencer Bond again about the conversation of June 2, 1982. In the first taped conversation between the defendant and Spencer Bond, the transcript of which was read to the jury, the defendant said that on the day of the murder he and Paul Main \u201cwere gett\u2019in [sic] drunk and high the day, you know, right next door.\u201d He said he \u201cdidn\u2019t even know about it until a few days later in the paper. Then the third day after that an officer wanted to talk to me about it.\u201d During the conversation the defendant said, \u201cI never even knew the girl,\u201d and, \u201cI didn\u2019t even know what her name was until I saw it in the paper.\u201d When Bond said to the defendant, \u201cYou told me, you were the last one to see her alive or somethin [sic]. That\u2019s why you \u2014 ,\u201d the defendant said, \u201cMe and Paul, we saw her putterin\u2019 around outside and everything.\u201d When Bond mentioned that \u201c[t]here was something about a bucket of water was in there \u2014 ,\u201d adding \u201c\u2014 a bucket or a pail or something\u2014 don\u2019t remember nothing about that, huh?\u201d the defendant responded, \u201cDidn\u2019t pay any attention to that even, not even when it happened, none of my business.\u201d Shortly thereafter the defendant said, \u201cAbout all I can remember of that is, ah, back in the papers were say\u2019in [sic] ah, got put in a trash can.\u201d\nIn the wiretap of June 4, 1982, the defendant initiated conversation about the case and stated that on the day of the murder he was at Paul Main\u2019s drinking wine and smoking \u201ca little pot on the front porch.\u201d The defendant said he had been there \u201c[approximately eight to ten hours from ten to eleven in the morning till four, five, six, seven in the evening. He gave varying times.\u201d According to the witness, the defendant stated that he and Paul had left Main\u2019s house that day \u201ca few times to get some more wine and beer.\u201d The defendant stated that when Mark Fair arrived home, the defendant saw him\n\u201c[A]rrive and come out of the house. Then a bunch of police were there. He said three or four cops were coming around and were scrambling all around the place, and he said the ambulance came; and then when the coroner\u2019s wagon came he said, \u2018Wow, the girl must have been dead over there,\u2019 and he said it\u2019s time for him to get out of there.\u201d\nThe defendant stated further that he had never been over at the victim\u2019s house but that he could have talked to her in the walkway up to the house. Asked, \u201cDid he say whether or not he was ever able to gain entry to the house any time that day?\u201d the witness answered, \u201cHe said no way; that the police \u2014 After the police got there there was no way. They sealed the premises off. There\u2019s no way he could have even got on the property.\u201d The defendant said that he had \u201cnever even\u201d known Karla Brown and had seen her only \u201conce or twice.\u201d The defendant said that he had first found out about the killing \u201c[a]bout three days after the murder when the police came to talk to him at his parents\u2019 house\u201d or else \u201csomebody mentioned it out at his parents\u2019 house that there was a girl killed down on Acton.\u201d\nAfter the second wiretap of the defendant Spencer Bond spoke with Paul Main from about 1 a.m. until about 3:30 a.m. on June 5, 1982, in a conversation wiretapped by the police. Later that day the police interviewed Paul Main for six or seven hours.\nJudy Main, the wife of Paul Main, testified that the day after the police spoke with her husband on Saturday, June 5, 1982, the defendant came to their residence in Brighton while she was there to talk to her husband about the Brown murder in order to \u201cfigure out how\u2014 what they had done\u201d on the day of the murder. The defendant told her husband that they \u201chad partied all day that day.\u201d She said, \u201cThey talked at some length about the day of the murder. They tried to figure out what day of the week it was. At one point John Prante talked about the fact that Karla Brown\u2019s murder was a capital offense and was punishable by death and that one of them would go to the gas chamber for it.\u201d The witness and Paul Main had been married about two years at the time of trial.\nAgent Rushing testified that on June 8, 1982, he, together with Chief Greer and the State\u2019s Attorney, took the dental impressions of the defendant, of Paul Main, and of Joe Seitz to Dr. Lowell Levine in New York. In an effort to locate the defendant upon returning from New York later that day, the witness learned that the defendant had been to Paul Main\u2019s residence on Sunday and that Paul Main\u2019s account was different on June 8, 1982, from what it had been earlier when police had spoken with him. On June 8, 1982, Paul Main was charged with and held for obstructing justice by virtue of having lied to the police, and the defendant was arrested. Paul Main did not testify at the defendant\u2019s trial. From the defendant\u2019s automobile police seized two white electrical cords with no male or female ends.\nSusan Lutz testified that she had met the defendant in 1980 or 1981 and that they had dated for a while. She stated that once when she and the defendant were in bed \u201c[h]e kind of whispered in my ear that he had killed a woman.\u201d Expressing disbelief at first, the witness later asked the defendant, \u201cDid you really kill somebody[?]\u201d to which he responded, \u201cI can\u2019t really talk about it because I\u2019ll lose my freedom.\u201d Asked why he had killed the woman, the defendant had answered that he was \u201cmad.\u201d The witness said that \u201cthere was a couple times he bit me on the neck, and it made me mad.\u201d He had, she said, bitten her on her left shoulder.\nAda Pollard testified that on June 21, 1978, the defendant had come to her house on Hamilton Street in Wood River in the afternoon \u201cand told us a girl had been murdered in Wood River.\u201d She said that Paul Main arrived there later. Harold Pollard of the same address testified that he had known the defendant since approximately 1972, when they had met at Lewis and Clark College, and that in 1975 they had shared a house trailer together for about a year. He testified that it would take about 10 minutes to drive from Paul Main\u2019s house on Acton to his mother\u2019s house on Hamilton and about 40 minutes to walk that distance. The witness testified that on June 21, 1978, the defendant had driven to his house around 6:30 or 7 p.m. seeking tranquilizers. The witness had advised the defendant that the doctor had given him just enough for his own use and that he should see a doctor if he wanted medication. The defendant said that he did not want to see a doctor and that \u201che had just come from over at Paul Main\u2019s house, and he said \u2014 stated that the girl living next door to him had been either murdered or killed. I can\u2019t recall the exact phrase he used.\u201d He and the defendant talked for between a half hour and an hour. The defendant said that \u201cthere was a lot of police over there and that they made him very nervous, and he reiterated, you know, that the girl had been killed, and I \u2014 I asked him how he knew, and he said well he says he got a glimpse of the girl by looking over the policeman\u2019s shoulder at the crime scene.\u201d The defendant said \u201cthat the body was found curled up on the floor with its hands tied behind its back.\u201d The defendant stated \u201che had access to the view by looking around the policeman or, you know, sticking his head inside of the house or something to this effect.\u201d The witness said, \u201cTo the best of my recollection he said he had looked over a policeman that was standing in the door. He looked over his shoulder, something to this effect.\u201d The defendant said of his activities that day \u201cthat he had been over at Paul\u2019s \u2014 Paul Main\u2019s house most of the day smoking-smoking pot and drinking beer.\u201d After the defendant had related this information to the witness, Paul Main arrived on foot at Harold Pollard\u2019s residence. A day or two before the murder the defendant had told the witness, in the words of the defendant, \u201cthat a nice looking blond chick had moved in next door and that he wouldn\u2019t mind getting some pussy off her.\u201d\nDr. Homer Campbell, a dentist and the chief consultant in forensic dentistry for the State of New Mexico, whose area of research is photographic enhancement and its application to forensic dentistry and forensic pathology in the analysis of injury patterns, testified that, in his opinion, the injuries to the victim\u2019s forehead, nose, and chin were caused by the base and wheels of a television tray stand. He described the human bite as ovoid in shape and stated that in a human bite most frequently only the front six teeth will mark. He said that very frequently a bite mark is \u201ctotally overlooked, or it is not recognized as an injury pattern.\u201d In photographs of the victim, the witness identified at least three bite marks overlapping one another. On the basis of the spacing of the defendant\u2019s teeth, which contained a space between each one of the top six front teeth, the witness was of the opinion that the defendant\u2019s teeth were consistent with the victim\u2019s wounds in the area of the right collarbone, photographs of which showed marks made by top front teeth with such spacing between them. The witness described Paul Main\u2019s teeth as severely crowded with no spacing between them at all and expressed the opinion that Paul Main\u2019s teeth could not have caused the injury pattern in question. The witness expressed the further opinion that the teeth of Joe Seitz, a model of whose teeth he had also examined, could not have caused this injury pattern. The witness testified that nothing about the quality of the photographs of the victim concerned him with regard to his opinion that the defendant\u2019s teeth were consistent with the wounds in question. The witness indicated that anyone viewing the body, clad in the buttoned sweater and bound about the neck by the two socks tied together, could not possibly have seen the bite marks on the body because they were covered.\nDr. Lowell Levine, who was qualified as an expert in forensic dentistry, testified that there were two or three human bite marks, some of which were superimposed upon one another, shown in the photographs of the victim. The witness was of the opinion, on the basis of the spacing pattern of the defendant\u2019s upper front teeth, that the defendant\u2019s teeth could have caused the injury pattern in question on the victim\u2019s body and that the teeth of Paul Main and Joe Seitz could not.\nDr. Ronald Mullen, the defendant\u2019s dentist, testified that the defendant\u2019s dental impressions reveal multiple spaces, called diastemata, in the upper front teeth. The witness stated that he has practiced as a dentist for 17 years and has treated 6,000 to 7,000 patients; he estimated that spacing between all six upper front teeth occurred in less than 1% of his patients. On cross-examination he estimated that he had seen such spacing \u201cless than fifteen\u201d times.\nCommander Ralph Skinner, who was chief of police for the city of Wood River at the time of the murder, testified that on June 24, 1978, he had interviewed the defendant, who told him that he went to Paul Main\u2019s house quite often, that he had been to Paul Main\u2019s on the evening of June 20, 1978, when the people at 979 Acton appeared to be moving in, and that on the day of the murder he had gone to Paul Main\u2019s house at about 8:30 a.m. to see if Main would like to go to St. Louis with the defendant to pick up some employment applications while the defendant dropped some off. The defendant had said that Main was unable to go with him, that he went alone, and that he next saw Main at about 6 p.m. at Harold Pollard\u2019s house in Wood River. The defendant told the witness he had learned of the murder at that time, when Main told him that the girl next door had been killed, although Main did not know how she had been killed.\nEldon McEuen, an officer for the Wood River police department, testified that on July 5, 1978, he interviewed the defendant concerning the investigation. In reviewing some reports the witness had noticed \u201ca discrepancy in some information given by Mr. Main and Mr. Prante.\u201d The defendant told him that on the day of the murder he had placed an application with the Shell Oil Company and had then gone to Paul Main\u2019s house to see if Main wanted to go with him to place applications for jobs elsewhere. Because Main was busy painting a house in the area, the defendant said, he left and placed some job applications in the St. Louis area, namely, Rockwell International, Mc-Donnel Douglas, and Aereo. The witness testified:\n\u201cWell, I asked him if he had returned to Main\u2019s house, and he told me he wasn\u2019t sure if he did or didn\u2019t. He couldn\u2019t account for some of his time. The next thing he told me was he remembered he had been on Hamilton Avenue in Wood River, and Paul Main had came [sic] to that address and advised him Karla Brown had been murdered.\u201d\nOn cross-examination the witness testified that the defendant had stated that he sometimes had trouble remembering things from one day to the next.\nRichard White, an investigator for the Wood River police department, testified that on June 4, 1982, he and Chief Greer had gone to the defendant\u2019s residence to obtain his cooperation with regard to the making of dental impressions of his teeth. On the way to the dentist\u2019s office, the defendant initiated conversation concerning the case, saying\n\u201cthat he remembered the Karla Brown murder and that the day that the murder occurred he remembered it because he was at Paul Main\u2019s house. They were sitting on Paul\u2019s front porch. I think he said they were drinking wine, and he remembered seeing the police cars come to the house, and they got up and went inside.\u201d\nThe witness said that the defendant stated that he had seen the victim \u201cthat day puttering outside in the yard, but he didn\u2019t remember what time that was he saw her.\u201d\nAgent O\u2019Connor testified that on June 8, 1982, at about 10:30 p.m., he and Agent Rushing were at the defendant\u2019s residence for the purpose of arresting him. After the defendant was told that he was a suspect in the case and advised of his constitutional rights, having initialled his rights to indicate his understanding of them, the defendant stated that he had contacted Don Weber, the Madison County State\u2019s Attorney, and had \u201ctold Mr. Weber that he did not want to be considered as a suspect in the ongoing investigation, and that he also told Mr. Weber that he was at the Karla Brown residence on the day of the murder and that he had arrived sometime in the afternoon.\u201d The defendant stated further to the witness \u201cthat when he made the phone call to Mr. Weber and advised Mr. Weber that he had been at the Karla Brown\u2019s [sic] house on the day of the murder that since the time of that phone call that that statement was incorrect; that he had not been at Karla Brown\u2019s residence on the day of the murder.\u201d The defendant had said\n\u201cthat the reason he had changed his mind about the conversation with Don Weber was between the time he had talked to Don Weber he had also had a conversation with a Mr. Paul Main in that a Mr. Paul Main had advised him that he was present at Karla Brown\u2019s house the day prior to the homicide rather than the day of the homicide, sir. That was the basis for changing his statement.\u201d\nAgent Rushing testified that on June 8, 1982, at about 10:30 p.m. he and Agent O\u2019Connor had gone to the defendant\u2019s residence and, prior to talking with him, had advised him of his rights. The defendant was asked about his telephone conversation with the State\u2019s Attorney in which, according to the witness, the defendant had said he did not want to be considered as a suspect in the investigation and that he had been at the victim\u2019s residence on the day of the murder and had then said that the statement was incorrect. The witness stated that the defendant said that\n\u201c[T]o the best of his recall he was not at Paul Main\u2019s residence, the residence adjacent to the Karla Brown residence, on the day of the murder at all; that he did not recall being there; that he was there on the day prior to which was June 20th; and he stated he recalled that now because he had been to Brighton or he had been to the Paul Main residence and talked to Paul Main, and at that time he was convinced that he was not at Paul Main\u2019s residence on the day of the murder.\u201d\nAdvised that the witness had heard him on a wiretap describe the events of the day of the murder, the defendant stated \u201cthat he didn\u2019t care what any witness said. He was not there on the day of the murder.\u201d The defendant said he \u201ccould not recall his location on the day of the incident. *** He stated that he did recall putting in an application at Shell, but he was uncertain as to whether it was that day or not.\u201d The witness testified:\n\u201cIn the question we asked him if he had met her at school, and he stated that he had not; that he did not know her; that he had only seen her on one previous occasion and that was approximately a day before the murder, and she was seen out in her front yard; that he saw her out in her front yard. He did not make acquaintance with her at school.\u201d\nThe defendant said \u201cthat he had not been inside the Karla Brown house at all.\u201d\nThe defendant called 17 witnesses, several of whom were character witnesses who had become acquainted with him since the date of the murder. One of defendant\u2019s witnesses was Jerry Gibson, who, in 1978, was incarcerated in the Madison County jail with Joseph Milazzo, who had stated to the witness within two months of the Brown murder that he had killed Karla Brown by strangling her. The witness said, \u201cI forget if he said he strangled her with a scarf or pantyhose.\u201d Milazzo apparently had indicated that he had gained access to the house through a window. The witness admitted on cross-examination that he had first told police about Milazzo\u2019s statement when the witness was attempting to make a \u201cdeal\u201d for himself.\nThe defendant put on evidence to show that he had attended Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville at various times in each year from 1975 through 1979 and in the fall of 1981 and the winter of 1982.\nThe defendant\u2019s sister, Jo Ellen Brady, testified on cross-examination that about the crime the defendant had told her, \u201cI\u2019m probably going to get called on this one because I was right next door when it happened.\u201d Another of defendant\u2019s witnesses, Leonard Chairney, testified on cross-examination that the defendant had told him that he had been at Paul Main\u2019s house on the day of the murder. Asked, \u201cWhat else did he tell you about the day of the killing?\u201d the witness answered, \u201cHe said he was at Karla Brown\u2019s house, and that was next door, and that he was sitting on the front porch, the police came up, he left, and he didn\u2019t do it.\u201d\nDr. Donald Ore, a pediatric dentist who was qualified as an expert in photography, testified that in the photographs of the victim\u2019s wounds there is no reference to scale so that they do not show the size of the victim and they do not indicate the magnitude of enlargement.\nDr. Edward Pavlec, an orthodontist, testified that because of the absence of a scale or standards he found very little evidence \u201cto even substantiate that we have a bite mark. If we do have a bite mark, I have many points that I can\u2019t answer; why it would make a straight line configuration, and if that is the case, if these happen to be teeth, I can\u2019t measure the teeth because there are no scales there.\u201d He was critical of the failure to have photographed the marks in question at right angles, which failure precludes accuracy in measurement. He expressed concern that pulling of the victim\u2019s skin by, apparently, the pathologist at the time one of the photographs was taken could cause distortion and possibly increase the size of the spaces between the marks. He classified the photographs of the wounds in question as \u201cone step above useless\u201d for purposes of comparison. On cross-examination the witness stated that the defendant\u2019s teeth could have left the mark on Karla Brown\u2019s shoulder. On redirect examination he found that marks made by three of the defendant\u2019s and Joe Seitz\u2019 front teeth were \u201cvery similar.\u201d He stated that the \u201c[b]ite mark would have to be considered as the primary trauma in the neck area.\u201d\nDr. Norman Sperber, a dentist in San Diego, California, who was qualified as a forensic odontologist, testified that if a picture of marks on a body is not taken at the proper angle of 90 degrees, there will be gross distortion and the mark can assume a shape other than its actual one. By way of illustration, the witness used photographs of circular labels, which appear round when the picture is taken at a 90 degree angle but which become ovoid in shape and \u201cflatten out\u201d when the picture is taken at a slight angle; to the extent that the camera is not perpendicular to the subject, the distortion increases. The witness stated that, in the absence of color and rulers and in the presence of distortion, the State\u2019s black and white photographs, which he described as \u201cdirty\u201d photographs because of the presence of blood on the body, were \u201cunusable\u201d with reference to analyzing them for bite marks. On cross-examination the witness said that the defendant\u2019s teeth could have made the marks shown on the victim\u2019s shoulder.\nThe defendant testified in his own behalf that he had \u201cvirtually no memory of it, but things have come together in this last year.\u201d He said he recalls arriving at Paul Main\u2019s house on the morning of the murder, leaving, and then returning. He had gone to Paul Main\u2019s to see if Main wanted to put in job applications with him. He estimated that he returned to Paul Main\u2019s house \u201cfrom about ten to twelve or one\u201d and said that he \u201csat around\u201d with Paul Main on the front porch. As to how long he was on the front porch he said, \u201cI just \u2014 I keep having this feeling that I was there all day; that I stayed the entire day; that it just keeps coming to mind.\u201d He recalls that in the evening, before sundown, he left. During the time he was at Main\u2019s he left the porch, possibly, to go to the store, to look at the house Paul was painting, and \u201cto go inside because I remember seeing police cars pull up, and at that time it just wasn\u2019t reasonable to sit there smoking a joint and getting \u2014 drinking.\u201d He stated that 3 to 10 policemen arrived and were \u201cwalking all over.\u201d He left Paul Main\u2019s, he said, around \u201c4:00 or 5:00, maybe 5:30 or so, 6:00, somewhere there.\u201d He testified:\n\u201cIt keeps feeling right to say that I went to Harold\u2019s mostly because I can recall going to Harold\u2019s, and I can recall at another time or that time that Paul came over. This stuck in my mind that Paul showed up, and he \u2014 he was shook to some degree, and he went on to explain more about what was going on over there at Karla\u2019s.\u201d\nHe said that the next time he heard about the death of Karla Brown was at Spencer Bond\u2019s house \u201c[a] matter of days, a matter of a week or so later.\u201d The topic came up, he said because Spencer was joking, suggesting that the defendant had committed the crime. He recalled that Spencer Bond had brought the subject up \u201cat least three or four times maybe within a month\u2019s time.\u201d He stated that he remembered talking to the police but was \u201cconfused about that.\u201d When he talked to Commander Skinner shortly after the crime had occurred, he had found it difficult to remember what had happened on the day of the murder. Of the interview with Officer McEuen, the defendant recalled only being photographed. About his conversations with Spencer Bond in June of 1982 the defendant said: \u201cHe was saying things that I just never knew. He was saying things about buckets of water, and he\u2019s saying things about bite marks, and I\u2019m \u2018Wait a minute, what are you talking about, man?\u2019 \u201d The defendant indicated that Spencer Bond was threatening to go with \u201cthree or four people\u201d to the police and that, as a result, he talked, among others, to \u201cMr. Weber about it, offered my help.\u201d He had never, he said, told Susan Lutz that he had killed anybody. He stated that the wires seized from his automobile had been purchased by him in 1980 from U-Haul as a \u201ctowlight kit\u201d in order to tow a car. He denied having killed Karla Brown.\nOn cross-examination he explained his statement to Commander Skinner on June 24, 1978, that he had not gone back to Paul Main\u2019s house at all on the day of the murder by saying, \u201cWell, it\u2019s \u2014 I don\u2019t know, memory problem.\u201d He added, \u201cMemory or confusion.\u201d He testified that he had never met the victim and did not know her name prior to the killing. He said he did remember \u201cPaul coming in into Harold\u2019s house. Be it the night of the murder, or the day after, or five \u2014 five weeks later I\u2019m not sure what day, but, yes, I recall Harold and me sitting around and Paul coming in and telling us about it.\u201d He \u201cguess[ed]\u201d that he had first learned that Karla Brown was dead when Paul Main told him so at Harold Pollard\u2019s. Of the conversation with Richard White on June 4, 1982, when his dental impressions were made, he said, \u201cI don\u2019t remember ever talking to Rick White but I do remember the incident of seeing Karla out there in the front yard puttering around the yard.\u201d He thought that occurred on the day of the murder but did not \u201cknow.\u201d He said the time he saw her \u201chad to be morning or midafternoon, early afternoon. The clothes were different from what you have showed in display here though. The clothes that I remember seeing her in was white shorts and like a white flowered top.\u201d He described with particularity the arrangement of furniture on Paul Main\u2019s porch on the day of the murder and the direction in which he and Paul Main were facing while sitting on the porch. He admitted that he had heard in 1980 that he and Paul Main had \u201ca conflict in statements.\u201d He had, he recalled, told Paul Main on Sunday, June 6, 1982, that he and Paul had been sitting together on the front porch of Main\u2019s house on the day of the murder but that Paul Main had denied that. He did not recall telling the police when he was arrested that he had not been at Karla Brown\u2019s or Paul Main\u2019s house on the day of the killing. He denied having told Harold Pollard that the girl next door was dead or any details about the murder; he said, \u201cI might have told him that there\u2019s a lot of cops around.\u201d He said he could not believe that he had told Harold Pollard he had seen the body over a policeman\u2019s shoulder. He described Harold Pollard as \u201cconfused.\u201d He denied, one by one, all of the incriminating statements attributed to him by Vickie and Mark White and Spencer Bond. He denied having made the statements attributed to him by Susan Lutz and denied having bitten her. He said that John Scroggins, whom he described as a friend, had lied when he said he had introduced the defendant to the victim the day before the murder. He denied that he had been advised of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest.\nThe parties stipulated that certain information was published in two newspapers, the Alton Telegraph and the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. An article in the Alton Telegraph on June 22, 1978, stated that the victim was found in the utility room in the basement of her home at about 5:30 p.m. An article on June 24, 1978, stated that the victim\u2019s body was found \u201cpartially stuffed in a barrel of water in the basement of her Wood River home\u201d and that \u201c[t]he body had been stuffed from the head to the waist in the barrel.\u201d\nIn rebuttal the State recalled Dr. Campbell, who testified that in his opinion the teeth of Joe Milazzo (or Malozo, as the name is variously spelled in the transcript of proceedings) could not, because of their spacing and the lack of abnormal breakage anywhere, have made the marks on the victim\u2019s shoulder. The witness said that there were \u201cdefinitely\u201d and \u201cabsolutely\u201d human bite marks on the victim\u2019s body. He pointed out certain differences between the impressions of the defendant\u2019s teeth and those of Joe Seitz to show why Seitz\u2019 teeth could not have made the wounds in question. The witness explained that the angle of the camera accounted for the linear pattern observed in some of the photographs; as the camera angle becomes obtuse, distortion of arch contour occurs. The witness testified that, of the teeth he had studied in the case, only those of the defendant could have made the mark on the victim\u2019s shoulder.\nWith respect to the first issue the defendant raises, he contends that the prosecution \u201ctotally failed to prove that he committed any act that caused the death of the victim\u201d and that the State, therefore, failed to prove the criminal agency on the part of the defendant necessary to sustain a conviction. The State put on evidence concerning both the cause of the victim\u2019s death and the multiple injuries inflicted shortly before she died, including wounds resulting from having been bitten. For over two years after the murder occurred, no one who had examined the body or participated in the investigation of the case had any idea that bite marks were present on the body, and, when the body was found, the bite marks, which were located in the area of the victim\u2019s right shoulder, were covered by the socks tied around the neck and a buttoned sweater, seemingly put on the victim after the attack was begun and prior to her immersion. Nevertheless, within three days of the murder the defendant told friends, according to their testimony, that there were \u201cteeth marks\u201d on the body where the victim had been bitten and indicated that they were located in the area of the victim\u2019s shoulder. Furthermore, expert witnesses testified that the defendant\u2019s teeth, remarkable for their highly unusual spacing, could have made the bite marks present on the victim\u2019s body. As early as about 6:30 or 7 p.m. on the day of the murder, within approximately an hour of the body\u2019s being found, the defendant had arrived at Harold Pollard\u2019s residence and while there informed him that the body had been found \u201ccurled up\u201d with its hands tied behind its back, facts that were true but were not released to the public. According to Pollard, the defendant had accounted for his knowledge by saying that he had been able to view the body by looking over the shoulder of a policeman in the doorway or something to that effect, an act not possible according to the State\u2019s witnesses and a statement that the defendant essentially repudiated at trial. At the time the defendant talked of \u201cteeth marks\u201d on the body to Vickie White and Spencer Bond, he said as well, according to these witnesses, that the victim had been \u201ctied up\u201d was in a \u201ccurled\u201d or \u201ccurled up\u201d position. That the body was bound in any way does not appear in the newspaper articles published in the days following the murder and read into the record. Also absent from these articles is any statement that the body was \u201ccurled up\u201d or in a \u201ccurled\u201d position. That the body was \u201cpartially stuffed in a barrel of water\u201d from the head to the waist does not necessarily imply or suggest that the body was \u201ccurled up.\u201d The testimony of Edna Vancil placed the defendant next door to the victim\u2019s residence shortly before and after the estimated time of the attack upon the victim as did some of the defendant\u2019s conflicting accounts of his whereabouts at that time. According to some of the defendant\u2019s accounts, on that day he was at the victim\u2019s residence as well. On the basis of the evidence presented, which we need not reiterate further here, the jury could have believed, and by its verdict plainly did believe, that the defendant not only had the opportunity to commit the crime but also was privy to information knowable only by one who had participated in the commission of it. Therefore, we must disagree with the defendant\u2019s contention that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed any act that caused the death of the victim and, thus, failed to prove criminal agency on his part.\nWith regard to the second issue the defendant presents for review concerning IPI Criminal 2d No. 3.02, the jury was read the part of that instruction which states:\n\u201cCircumstantial evidence is the proof of facts or circumstances which give rise to a reasonable inference of other facts which tend to show the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Circumstantial evidence should be considered by you together with all the other evidence in the case in arriving at your verdict.\u201d\nThe second paragraph of the instruction, which the defendant apparently refers to as the \u201cbracketed\u201d material, was not read to the jury. That paragraph states, \u201cYou should not find the defendant guilty unless the facts or circumstances proved exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.\u201d As the State points out and the defendant concedes, the defendant stated at trial that he had no objection to the giving of the People\u2019s instruction No. 7, which did not include the second paragraph of IPI Criminal 2d No. 3.02. The defendant submitted only one instruction, having to do with evidence of the defendant\u2019s reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen. He did not address the omission in his post-trial motion or at the hearing on that motion but raises the issue for the first time on appeal.\nIn People v. Roberts (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 1, 387 N.E.2d 331, the supreme court stated that its cases hold that failure to make an objection at trial to an error in jury instructions waives the issue for appeal, the reason for the waiver rule being that timely objections to defective instructions permit the court to correct the defects before the instructions are given and do not, therefore, permit a party failing to object to gain the advantage of obtaining a reversal based upon his own failure to act. The waiver rule is now, however, absolute and does not apply, as the court said in Roberts, to substantial defects in instructions if the interests of justice require, as provided by Supreme Court Rule 451(c) (87 Ill. 2d R. 451(c)). In sum:\n\u201c[Wjhere there is a failure to object to an instruction, waiver is the rule, and the provision of our Rule 451(c) constitutes an exception which, under the prior decisions of this court, is a limited exception (People v. Underwood (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 124, 129-30), to be used to correct \u2018grave errors\u2019 (People v. Jenkins (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 61, 66), or to be applied where the case is close factually and fundamental fairness requires that the jury be properly instructed (People v. Joyner (1972), 50 Ill. 2d 302, 307).\nIn discussing exceptions to the waiver rule as it relates to the failure to raise an issue in the trial court, this court stated in People v. Burson (1957), 11 Ill. 2d 360, 370, that the rule \u2018will not operate to deprive an accused of his constitutional rights of due process.\u2019 The court also stated that it may as a matter of grace, take notice of errors appearing upon the record which deprived the accused of substantial means of enjoying a fair and impartial trial. (11 Ill. 2d 360, 370-71.) In People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280, 283, this court noted that the plain error exception to the waiver rule will also be applied in criminal cases in which the evidence is closely balanced.\u201d (Emphasis in original.) People v. Roberts (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 1, 14, 387 N.E.2d 331, 337.\nThe defendant relies, in part, upon People v. Crow (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 520, 485 N.E.2d 381, in which the trial court refused to give the material omitted here. In Crow the court concluded that, when the evidence in a case is entirely circumstantial, juries should continue to be instructed in the language of the second paragraph of IPI Criminal 2d No. 3.02. The court found that the failure to give the second paragraph of the instruction was not harmless since, having considered the evidence, it could not say that the verdict would not have been different had that paragraph of the instruction been given. In Crow, however, waiver was not in issue. Hence, we find Crow inapposite to the case at bar.\nIn his reply brief the defendant argues that the instant case is a factually close one and, for that reason, the waiver rule ought not to apply. Our review of the evidence, however, which we have already stated at great length, leads us to the conclusion that such is not the case and that, consequently, the omission of the second paragraph of the instruction did not deprive the accused of substantial means of enjoying a fair and impartial trial. Therefore, we hold that this issue is waived for review.\nIn the third issue that the defendant asks us to consider on review, he maintains that his prior extrajudicial statements were erroneously used as substantive evidence rather than for the limited purpose of impeachment. Although the State asserts correctly that the issue was not raised in the defendant\u2019s written post-trial motion or at the hearing thereon and is, therefore, waived (People v. Friesland (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 369, 488 N.E.2d 261), we nevertheless elect to consider the issue because of the bearing the defendant\u2019s extrajudicial statements had upon the evidence in this case.\nThe cases upon which the defendant relies, namely, People v. Bailey (1975), 60 Ill. 2d 37, 322 N.E.2d 804, People v. Collins (1971), 49 Ill. 2d 179, 274 N.E.2d 77, People v. Newman (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 419, 197 N.E.2d 12, and People v. Fields (1975), 31 Ill. App. 3d 458, 334 N.E.2d 752, involved the prior inconsistent statements of witnesses other than defendants rather than the statements of defendants themselves. Any and every statement by an accused person, insofar as it is not excluded by the doctrine of confessions, or by the privilege against self-incrimination, is usable against him as an admission. (People v. Garcia (1981), 95 Ill. App. 3d 792, 420 N.E.2d 482; People v. Howell (1977), 53 Ill. App. 3d 465, 368 N.E.2d 689.) An admission is any statement or conduct by a defendant which, when considered with other facts in evidence, permits an inference of guilt of the offense charged. (People v. Burns (1981), 99 Ill. App. 3d 42, 424 N.E.2d 1298.) Where an admission is proffered against a defendant, it is always admissible as substantive evidence for the purpose of showing guilt. (People v. Burns (1981), 99 Ill. App. 3d 42, 424 N.E.2d 1298.) For these reasons the defendant\u2019s prior statements, used as admissions, were properly admitted as substantive evidence.\nConcerning the fourth issue the defendant raises on appeal, he contends that conduct of the prosecutor at trial \u201ccompounded the aforementioned error,\u201d which we have held not to be error, \u201cand resulted only in inflaming the jury.\u201d The defendant urges numerous instances of alleged error on the part of the prosecutor during the course of the lengthy trial, many of which, as the State points out, were waived for failure of the defendant to object to them when they occurred. We have, nevertheless, examined all of the instances of alleged error and find that in view of the nature and the extent of the evidence any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 18, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705, 87 S. Ct. 824.\nIn the fifth issue the defendant raises for review, he asserts, as we have said, that expert testimony for the State concerning bite marks should not have been permitted because of \u201cits exclusionary nature and its improper conclusiveness of the guilt of the defendant.\u201d However, at no time prior to appeal did the defendant raise this issue. He did not object to the testimony of the State\u2019s experts who testified in this regard and did not raise the issue in his written post-trial motion. In fact, he himself called experts to testify about the same matters. Even if consideration of the issue were not waived for review, nothing in the record indicates that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert testimony concerning bite marks to aid comparison between the wounds on the victim\u2019s right shoulder and the dentition of the defendant, the weight of such testimony being determined by the jury as trier of fact. See People v. Milone (1976), 43 Ill. App. 3d 385, 356 N.E.2d 1350.\nWith respect to the sixth issue the defendant raises, he argues that his motion for change of venue should have been allowed because the State\u2019s admitted use of publicity about the case by the press as an investigative tool was \u201cintended to create a public atmosphere of interest and suspicion.\u201d On May 10, 1983, prior to trial in June, a hearing was held on the defendant\u2019s motion for change of venue. Following arguments of counsel the trial judge stated in making his ruling:\n\u201cI feel that the Motion for Change of Place of trial is more properly raised at that time that jury is being selected. I think only then will the Court be able to make any determination as to whether or not there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is such prejudice in actual existence that the Court reasonably apprehends that the Defendant can\u2019t receive a fair and impartial trial.\nFor that reason the Court will deny the Motion for Change of Place of Trial at this time but grant the Defendant the right to raise that motion again during jury selection should he so desire.\nSo Motion for Change of Venue as it is entitled is denied with leave to refile it at the time of jury selection, and I have so noted on the face of the motion itself.\u201d\nThe record indicates that voir dire commenced on June 20, 1983, and continued each day until it was concluded on June 23, 1983. According to the State in its brief, the voir dire examination was not transcribed, and the record for review contains no transcript of it. A transcript of a \u201cHearing on Motions,\u201d dated June 20, June 23, and June 24, 1983, shows that after the voir dire examination was concluded the trial court stated, \u201cOn the renewed motion for change of venue, that motion will be denied.\u201d No other reference to the motion is included in the record.\nIt is the duty of the appellant to provide a complete record on appeal, and the judgment entered by the trial court is entitled to every presumption in favor of its validity when the record is incomplete. (People v. Butler (1976), 41 Ill. App. 3d 750, 354 N.E.2d 568.) In the absence of a transcript of the voir dire examination, it is impossible for us to review the issue presented because of its factual nature. However, in the record that we do have, there is nothing to suggest that a jury anything less than fair and impartial heard and rendered a verdict in the defendant\u2019s case or that the trial court erred in denying the defendant\u2019s motion for a change of venue.\nAs we have indicated above, the defendant in his reply brief raises for the first time the issue of the denial of effective assistance of counsel to him at trial, saying:\n\u201cThe State argues, as it has throughout its Brief, that even assuming the Defendant\u2019s contentions are correct, that most of these errors were waived by the Defendant as a result of the defense counsel\u2019s failure to object during trial or to raise the issue in a post-trial motion. With some reluctance, the Defendant concedes that in those instances referred to by the State, the defense counsel did not object or raise the issue in a post-trial motion. In addition, the failure of defense counsel to object resulted in substantial prejudice to the Defendant without which the result of the trial would probably have been different.\u201d\nThe State relied upon People v. Accardo (1985), 139 Ill. App. 3d 813, 487 N.E.2d 664, where, as here, the defendant sought to circumvent the rule of waiver by raising for the first time in his reply brief the argument that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because of counsel\u2019s failure to preserve the issue adequately in the proceedings in the trial court. As the court stated in Accardo, citing Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (87 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(7)), an argument not raised in the initial brief is deemed waived for purposes of review, although issues first raised in a reply brief may be addressed if a just result dictates consideration of all the issues. The court in Accardo concluded that the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument first advanced in defendant\u2019s reply brief was not \u201cconfined strictly to replying to arguments presented in the brief of the appellee,\u201d as required by Supreme Court Rule 341(g) (87 Ill. 2d R. 341(g)). The Accardo court concluded further that, under the circumstances of the case, the rule of waiver should not be relaxed, observing:\n\u201cDefendant\u2019s reply brief responds neither factually nor legally to the State\u2019s argument in its brief that a waiver occurred. Instead, the reply brief raises an entirely new issue, not claimed in the initial brief, to evade the State\u2019s waiver argument. Defendant could have anticipated the State\u2019s waiver argument. Were we to allow defendant to raise the effective assistance of counsel argument for the first time in his reply brief, the State will not have had the opportunity to respond.\u201d (People v. Accardo (1985), 139 Ill. App. 3d 813, 817, 487 N.E.2d 664, 667.)\nThe court declined to address the defendant\u2019s argument of ineffective assistance of counsel.\nWe find the situation presented in the instant case virtually indistinguishable from that presented in Accardo and adopt its reasoning. Unlike the argument of the defendant in People v. George (1986), 140 Ill. App. 3d 1001, 489 N.E.2d 1111, upon which the instant defendant relies, the argument advanced here is not, we think, an appropriate \u201crepl[y] to arguments presented in the brief of the appellee.\u201d In George the defendant claimed in his initial brief that he had been convicted of felony theft improperly and in his reply brief that trial counsel had been incompetent for eliciting the value of the items he was convicted of possessing, thus proving the State\u2019s case where the State had failed to do so. In its brief the State had responded that the issue was one of variance only. There was no attempt by the defendant in George to circumvent the rule of waiver. In the instant case, as in Accardo, the defendant could have anticipated the State\u2019s argument of waiver and raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in his initial brief, thereby providing the State with an opportunity to respond. For these reasons we grant the State\u2019s motion to strike those portions of the defendant\u2019s brief addressing the issue of the denial of effective counsel to him, and we do not consider the issue.\nAffirmed.\nKASSERMAN, P.J., and WELCH, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE JONES" } ], "attorneys": [ "Sherwood & Kassin, of Bethalto, for appellant.", "Dick Allen, State\u2019s Attorney, of Edwardsville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Raymond E Buckley, Jr., all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN N. PRANTE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201483\u20140837\nOpinion filed October 3, 1986.\nSherwood & Kassin, of Bethalto, for appellant.\nDick Allen, State\u2019s Attorney, of Edwardsville (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Raymond E Buckley, Jr., all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "1039-01", "first_page_order": 1063, "last_page_order": 1089 }