[40]*40Opinion of the Court by
Justice GRAVES.
Appellant, Fred Furnish, was convicted in the Kenton Circuit Court of murder and was sentenced to death. In addition, Appellant received enhanced sentences of thirty years for first-degree burglary, life imprisonment for first-degree robbery, ten years for theft by unlawful taking over $300, and ten years for obtaining money by fraud, by virtue of his being found to be a first-degree persistent felony offender. He appeals to this Court as a matter of right.
On the afternoon of Thursday June 25, 1998, 66-year-old Jean Williamson was discovered dead in her home. Williamson’s body was found in a kneeling position, leaning over the bathtub, in the master bathroom. Williamson was fully clothed and blood was found in the master bedroom, indicating that her body had been moved into the bathroom after death. An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be strangulation, and a washcloth is believed to have been the murder weapon. A search of the crime scene revealed no forced entry and no identifiable fingerprints. Williamson’s bedroom, as well as the bedroom of her daughter, Gail, were ransacked and jewelry and credit cards were stolen. On August 14, 1998, Appellant was indicted in the Kenton Circuit Court for murder, first-degree robbery, burglary, receiving goods and services by fraud, theft by unlawful taking, and for being a first-degree persistent felony offender.
At trial, defense counsel conceded that Appellant was a “thief and a burglar,” and that he had been in the Williamson residence on the day of the murder, but denied that Appellant murdered Williamson. It was the defense theory that Appellant and another person had intended to burglarize the Williamson residence but that this other “mystery person” is the one who murdered Williamson.
The Commonwealth introduced evidence that Appellant, who was employed by Kiwi Carpet Cleaners, had been in the Williamson residence on May 19th, approximately one month before the murder. In fact, the indictment for theft by unlawful taking over $300 related to jewelry that Appellant stole from the Williamson residence while he was there cleaning the carpets on May 19th. In addition, on the day of the murder, several neighbors observed a man, later identified as Appellant, walking near the Williamson residence. Police recovered Williamson’s jewelry from numerous acquaintances of Appellant. Further, video surveillance tapes from several area banks depicted Appellant using Williamson’s ATM card to obtain cash in the hours following her death.
On appeal, Appellant raises numerous allegations of error, many of which are unpreserved. For convenience, we have categorized these issues into five sections. To the extent that any error is unpre-served, it has been reviewed in accordance with the standard set forth in Cosby v. Commonwealth, Ky., 776 S.W.2d 367 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1063, 110 S.Ct. 880, 107 L.Ed.2d 963 (1989), overruled, in part, St. Clair v. Roark, Ky., 10 S.W.3d 482 (1999), i.e., whether there was a reasonable justification or explanation for defense counsel’s failure to object, and whether the totality of the circumstances is persuasive either that the defendant would not have been found guilty of a capital offense or that he would not have received the death sentence but for the unpreserved error. See also Tamme v. Commonwealth, Ky., 973 S.W.2d 13 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1153, 119 S.Ct. 1056, 143 L.Ed.2d 61 (1999).
[41]*41After reviewing the record and hearing oral argument, we affirm Appellant’s convictions. However, because Appellant was erroneously denied an instruction on life without the benefit of probation or parole, we remand this matter to the Kenton Circuit Court for a new penalty phase in accordance with this opinion. As such, we need not address those issues pertaining to the penalty phase which are not likely to reoccur on remand.
I. PRETRIAL ISSUES
1. Indictment
Appellant argues that the grand jury indictment was defective because it failed to state the culpable mens rea for the charges of murder, receiving goods and services by fraud, and theft by unlawful taking over $300. We have repeatedly held that an indictment is sufficient if it fairly informs the defendant of the nature of the crime with which he is charged. Stephenson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 982 S.W.2d 200 (1998); Thomas v. Commonwealth, Ky., 931 S.W.2d 446 (1996); Wylie v. Commonwealth, Ky., 556 S.W.2d 1 (1977). At his arraignment, Appellant stated that he understood the charges contained in the indictment. At no point did Appellant allege that notice was insufficient. Reversal is not warranted on this issue.
Appellant also contends that because the Grand Jury failed to include aggravating circumstances in the murder indictment the prosecution was precluded from seeking the death penalty. We disagree. The indictment, which was returned on August 14, 1998, clearly charged Appellant with “Murder, a capital offense, when he caused the death of Jean Williamson, by strangling her to death, in violation of KRS 507.020 _” Moreover, on the same date that the indictment was returned, the Commonwealth filed a formal “Notice of Aggravating Circumstances,” which stated that the case would be prosecuted as a capital case based on the aggravating circumstances of the murder being committed while Appellant was engaged in the commission of first-degree robbery and first-degree burglary. At no time prior to this appeal did defense counsel complain of insufficient notice and Appellant may not claim such at this time.
2. Denial of Continuance
Appellant argues that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s refusal to grant a 35-day continuance. Appellant alleges that the trial court was more concerned with judicial economy and Appellant’s trial interfering with other matters on the docket than with ensuring that Appellant received “meaningful access to justice.” Appellant contends that this denial of a continuance violated his right to both federal and state due process standards by failing to provide him with the opportunity for complete evaluation, preparation, and presentation of a defense. Hunter v. Commonwealth, Ky., 869 S.W.2d 719, 722-24 (1994); see also Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). The trial court’s extensive order demonstrates that this issue lacks merit.
Appellant was indicted on August 24, 1998, and the trial court initially scheduled a trial date of January 26, 1999. In December, defense counsel moved to continue the trial until June 1999, to allow more time for preparation. Following a hearing,. the trial court granted a continuance until April 13,1999. Throughout numerous pretrial hearings, counsel was reminded that the April trial date was “firm.”
On March 31, 1999, a hearing was held concerning the Commonwealth’s intent to introduce KRE 404(b) evidence. At the close of the hearing, the Court afforded [42]*42the parties an opportunity to file supplemental authority prior to 2:00 p.m. on April 1st. This extension of time was a result of defense counsel’s assertion that certain materials needed to be presented ex parte to avoid revealing confidential defense matters to the Commonwealth. The record indicates that after defense counsel failed to file any additional materials, counsel’s office was called and the trial court was informed that the defense had decided not to file any supplemental pleadings.
However, on April 5th, the defense filed a “Supplemental Affidavit in Support of Motion to Continue.” The affidavit did not relate to any confidential matters as previously represented by defense counsel, but rather reasserted counsel’s “bald assertions” that the defense had been too busy to prepare for trial and needed additional time.
On April 7, 1999, the trial court entered an 18-page order detailing the procedural history of the case and extensively addressing the continuance issue. The Court noted that although 35 days was, facially, a minimal extension, it believed defense counsel was aware that the request was not realistic, in that on the day counsel sought to have the trial begin, eight other jury matters were scheduled, most of which involved representation by defense counsel’s own office; that the courthouse was scheduled to move in June; that another death penalty case scheduled for September 1999 would likely delay the trial in this case until late Fall 1999 or Winter 2000; and that, in fact, if Appellant’s trial was scheduled during the same quarterly jury panel as the other death penalty case, defense counsel would object if one panel was utilized for two death penalty proceedings. Thus, the trial court ruled the inconvenience to the litigants, witnesses, counsel and the court was significant.
Furthermore, the trial court acknowledged that although there had only been one prior continuance, a ten-month period to prepare a death penalty case was sufficient and additional continuances should not have been necessary. The trial court opined that perhaps the public defender’s office was not engaging in an efficient use of time.
The trial court further stated that the record was devoid of any evidence indicating the delay was caused by Appellant himself and noted that Appellant was represented by three competent attorneys. Consequently, the trial court concluded that defense counsel’s request for additional time to conduct independent testing of fingerprint evidence and to retain additional expert witnesses weighed in favor of granting a continuance to avoid any prejudice to Appellant. Accordingly, the trial court granted a 14-day continuance.
Snodgrass v. Commonwealth, Ky., 814 S.W.2d 579 (1991), sets forth the seven factors to be considered by the trial court in ruling upon a motion for continuance: (1) length of delay sought; (2) previous continuances; (3) inconvenience to litigants, witnesses, counsel, and the court; (4) whether the delay is purposeful or is caused by the accused; (5) availability of other competent counsel, if at issue; (6) complexity of the case; and (7) whether denying the continuance would lead to identifiable prejudice. As noted above, the trial court considered each factor.
The trial court’s order clearly reveals that it exhaustively analyzed the circumstances presented and determined that defense counsel’s request was “more for the appellate record” and contained primarily bald assertions that counsel needed more time. Even at this point in time, [43]*43Appellant is unable to set forth anything specific that would have been done had he received the 35-day continuance. See Foley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 953 S.W.2d 924, 937 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1053, 118 S.Ct. 1375, 140 L.Ed.2d 522 (1998). The trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying a motion for continuance, and that discretion was not abused in this case. RCr 9.04.
3. Conflict of Interest
In a related issue, Appellant alleges that the trial court’s April 7th order denying his request for a 35-day continuance created serious conflict of interest questions between Appellant and defense counsel.
In a diatribe on Kentucky’s Code of Professional Responsibility, Appellant claims that the trial court implied defense counsel was not providing adequate representation. After receiving the order, defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that such was mandated KRPC 1.16(a), since a conflict of interest existed between counsel and Appellant. On appeal, Appellant now opines that he was entitled to some form of remedial relief. Essentially, Appellant argues that the trial court should have recused itself from a hearing to determine whether its order did, in fact, create a conflict and, if so, what remedial action was required. We find this argument to border on frivolous.
While the trial court, in its April 7th order, opined that defense counsel was aware that a 35-day continuance was unrealistic and was requested more for the benefit of the appellate record, the trial court further stated, “Defendant has three skilled, experienced and competent lawyers who are vigorous in their representation of him.” At no time did the trial court accuse defense counsel of “violations of the ethical duties of representation” as is alleged in Appellant’s brief. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that although the trial court should have refrained from expounding on its perceived deficiencies of the public defender system, such comments certainly did not rise to the level of creating a conflict of interest between defense counsel and Appellant, nor did they warrant recusal.
4. Judicial Bias
Appellant argues that the trial judge should have recused prior to the sentencing hearing because he had already decided to sentence Appellant to death. Appellant’s argument is based upon the following statement by the court:
With the verdict, it’s my understanding by statute or rule with the — with the sentence that’s been recommended by the jury, the Court must do a written report to the Supreme Court, in addition to the formal sentencing document. So, I need a PSI to complete that report, because there’s a lot of information that goes in there that’s not been presented in this trial.
Appellant contends that the above language indicates that the trial court did not consider any additional information and merely “rubber stamped” the jury’s recommendation of death. As this case is being remanded for a new penalty phase, we need not address this issue other than to conclude that we do not find any indication that the trial court was biased against Appellant.
II. JUROR ISSUES
1. Limitations on Voir Dire
Appellant argues that he was denied the opportunity to voir dire potential jurors on the full range of penalties. Specifically, defense counsel sought to elicit [44]*44from potential jurors whether they could impose a minimum sentence of twenty years for murder. At a bench conference, the trial court stated:
[Y]ou can identify clearly, ... the four possible range of penalties, term of years imprisonment not less than 20, term of life in prison, term of life in prison without parole for at least 25 years, and death. Clearly can be identified, “Can you consider the full range of penalties?” As a follow-up question, as Mr. Spicer was attempting to do yesterday, I will not allow, “Can you consider 20 years?” I will allow, “Can you consider a penalty of 20 years to the most severe penalty of death?” Because that encompasses the full range of penalties. Twenty years is not an option, by itself. That option is ... not less than 20 years. Which means 20 years to life.
And I want to make it clear for the record, there is not an option, as a fifth alternative, to pick 20 years. That misleads the jury. There is an option to pick a term of not less than 20 years, or 20 years to life. Acknowledging that under the instructions of the court, based upon the proof and the facts of this case, the jury very well could retire to the jury room, and if they find Mr. Furnish guilty, sentence him to 20 years. But that will be a choice of 20 years to life, that will not be a fifth option of 20 years only.
Counsel is entitled to question jurors on whether they “could consider the entire range of penalties in the event a guilty verdict was returned.” Anderson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 864 S.W.2d 909, 911 (1993); see also Springer v. Commonwealth, Ky., 998 S.W.2d 439 (1999). Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, this case is not analogous to Fugate v. Commonwealth, Ky., 993 S.W.2d 931, 938 (1999), wherein the trial court “directed the defendant to mention only the terms ‘minimum and maximum’ without mentioning any specific number of years.” Here, defense counsel was not impeded from inquiring whether potential jurors could consider the full range of penalties, including a term of not less than twenty years. No error occurred.
Appellant also claims prejudicial error because he was not permitted to question the panel on drug addiction as a mitigating circumstance and the presumption of innocence, as well as what he perceives,as an incorrect definition of “substantial.” Suffice it to say, we have reviewed these claims and have determined that the trial court properly curtailed questions that were not proper and only confused the panel.
The remainder of Appellant’s complaints concern his belief that the prosecutor was given a greater preference and latitude during voir dire questioning. The record refutes such a claim. The extent of direct questioning by counsel during voir dire is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Grooms v. Commonwealth, Ky., 756 S.W.2d 131, 134 (1988). The trial court correctly limited defense counsel’s questioning when it became clear that jurors found the inquiry confusing. Both parties were able to thoroughly voir dire the panel and the trial court stated that it looked to the “totality of the answers” in ruling on the challenges for cause.
2. Excusáis for Cause
The decision whether to excuse a juror for cause is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. If the trial court abuses its discretion by improperly failing to sustain a challenge for cause, it is reversible error because the defendant had to use a peremptory chai-[45]*45lenge and was thereby deprived of its use otherwise. Thomas v. Commonwealth, Ky., 864 S.W.2d 252, 259 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1177, 114 S.Ct. 1218, 127 L.Ed.2d 564 (1994). While it is unnecessary to discuss Appellant’s arguments relating to those jurors he believes should have been excused due to their inability to consider the full range of penalties, he also alleges that several jurors should have been excused due to their connection to the charged crimes or exposure to publicity-
Juror Griffith was an employee of PNC Bank, although at a different branch than the one where Appellant used Williamson’s ATM card. Juror Griffith commented that she was familiar with the type of video system used at PNC banks and that she had on occasion been responsible for changing the videotape at her branch. Griffith also stated that she was acquainted with the Commonwealth’s witness, Fred Mattress, a PNC Bank employee who testified regarding the bank’s video camera system. However, Griffith noted that she worked at a different branch than Mattress and had not heard any details of the case. Griffith stated that she could base her decision on the evidence she heard in the courtroom.
Although defense counsel did not move to excuse Juror Griffith, Appellant now argues that the trial court should have sua sponte removed her for cause. We disagree. We do not find Juror Griffith’s knowledge of the video system particularly relevant since there was no issue raised that the cameras that captured Appellant using Williamson’s ATM card were malfunctioning or somehow inaccurate. Further, neither Juror Griffith’s acquaintance with Mattress nor her employment with PNC warranted her excusal for cause. Compare Marsch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 743 S.W.2d 830 (1987). Juror Griffith clearly expressed that she would consider only the law and facts of the case in making her decision.
Jurors Brosmore and Hofacre were likewise not required to be excused for cause after stating they were aware of publicity following the crimes. “The fact that a prospective juror may have some knowledge of a case does not establish objective bias.” Foley, supra, at 932. In McQueen v. Scroggy, 99 F.3d 1302, 1319-20 (6th Cir.1997), cert. denied sub nom, McQueen v. Parker, 520 U.S. 1257, 117 S.Ct. 2422, 138 L.Ed.2d 185 (1997), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated:
There is no per se rule that mere exposure to media reports about a case merits exclusion of a juror. To the contrary, in order to merit disqualification of a juror, the media reports must engender a predisposition or bias that cannot be put aside, requiring the juror to decide a case one way or the other .... There is no constitutional prohibition against jurors simply knowing the parties involved or having knowledge of the case. The Constitution does not require ignorant or uninformed jurors; it requires impartial jurors. While it may be sound trial strategy for an attorney to exclude anyone with knowledge of the facts or the parties, such a result is not mandated by the Constitution.
All of the challenged jurors in this case stated that they could be impartial and base a decision on the facts and evidence presented. Disqualification was not warranted.
3. Peremptory Challenges
Appellant’s argument that the trial court’s allocation of peremptory strikes was erroneous is without merit. RCr 9.40(2) provides that if alternate jurors are to be seated, the number of challenges for [46]*46“each side and each defendant shall be increased by one.” Contrary to Appellant’s interpretation, in a case where there is only one defendant, such as is present here, the defense “side” and the “defendant” are one and the same. Springer v. Commonwealth, supra, at 444. The trial court properly ruled that Appellant was entitled to one, not two, additional peremptory strikes.
Nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s proposition that defendants should be given additional peremptory strikes to “offset the [prosecution’s] tremendous advantage of knowing more about panel members and being an elected official trying a case with jurors selected from the registered voters list.” While certainly novel, this notion is utterly without any basis in our case law or criminal rules on the grounds asserted. The decision whether to grant additional perempto-ries is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Bowling v. Commonwealth, Ky., 942 S.W.2d 293, 308 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 986, 118 S.Ct. 451, 139 L.Ed.2d 387 (1997).
III. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
1. Purchase and Use of Crack Cocaine
Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed a notice pursuant to KRE 404(c) of its intent to introduce evidence pertaining to Appellant’s purchase and use of crack cocaine during the evening of June 25, 1998, and the morning of June 26, 1998. The Commonwealth stated that evidence of Appellant’s purchase of drugs with money obtained through the use of Williamson’s stolen ATM card demonstrated motive and was “interwoven with other evidence essential to the case in that the separation of this evidence cannot be accomplished without serious adverse effect to Plaintiff.” Over defense objection, the trial court ultimately ruled that while evidence of Appellant’s cocaine use prior to the offenses was not admissible, evidence of Appellant’s actions “surrounding his commission of the offense of receiving goods and services obtained by fraud on June 25-26” was intertwined with facts of the other crimes and that the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. We agree.
Appellant contends that the evidence of his crack cocaine purchase and use was not relevant because defense counsel admitted that Appellant had committed all of the crimes except murder. Notwithstanding, the trial court properly held that the evidence was inextricably intertwined so as to be admissible under KRE 404(b). Appellant is not entitled to stipulate away otherwise competent evidence simply because he does not want the jury to hear such. Barnett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 979 S.W.2d 98 (1998); Chumbler v. Commonwealth, Ky., 905 S.W.2d 488 (1995). The evidence of Appellant’s use of crack cocaine showed that he used Williamson’s ATM card to obtain money to purchase the drugs. Clearly, such evidence is intertwined with the evidence pertaining to the other charges in this case. Cf Funk v. Commonwealth, Ky., 842 S.W.2d 476 (1992). No error occurred.
2. Prior theft
Pursuant to KRE 404(b), the Commonwealth introduced the testimony of Betty Geiman, who testified that Appellant had cleaned her carpets on April 17, 1998, while he was employed with Kiwi Carpet Cleaning. On June 12, 1998, Appellant returned to Geiman’s home on a bicycle and requested to inspect her carpets. Geiman testified that she was unaware Appellant was no longer employed by Kiwi and allowed him to enter her home when she noticed that his bike had a [47]*47flat tire. After looking at the carpets, Gei-man left Appellant alone in the kitchen to make several phone calls to ostensibly get help with his bicycle. At some point after Appellant left, Geiman went to retrieve her purse from the kitchen and realized that her wallet was missing. On cross-examination, Geiman conceded that she did not actually see Appellant take her wallet nor had she used her wallet for two days prior to realizing it was missing.
Defense counsel did not object to Gei-man’s testimony and Appellant concedes that this issue is not preserved. However, in cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, a two part inquiry is made to determine whether there is a reasonable justification or explanation for counsel’s failure to object, and, if there is no reasonable explanation, whether the unpreserved error was prejudicial. Sanders v. Commonwealth, Ky., 801 S.W.2d 665, 668 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 831, 112 S.Ct. 107, 116 L.Ed.2d 76 (1991) (citing Cosby, supra).
We are of the opinion that it was reasonable trial strategy not to object to German's testimony because it supported defense counsel’s opening proposition that while Appellant was a thief, he was not a murderer. Geiman was not injured in any manner nor was she physically threatened by Appellant. The allegation was that he simply stole he wallet. As such, we do not believe her testimony was prejudicial to Appellant. Reversal is not warranted.
3. Comment on pre-arrest silence
On June 28, 1998, a search warrant was obtained for the residence of Dawn Godsey, Appellant’s cousin, where Appellant had been staying. Appellant was present when officers arrived and he was handcuffed for the protection of the officers. Appellant was specifically told he was not under arrest. Appellant was taken to a Kenton County Police Department conference room pending execution of the warrants. While there, he told various officers “I don’t know what you’re talking about” and “I got nothing else to say” when asked about Williamson’s murder.
At trial, Detective Denham repeated Appellant’s statements, as did the prosecutor during closing arguments. Appellant contends that as a result, he was denied his constitutional right to remain silent and that his statements were not admissible since he was not Mirandized prior to making them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
We need not engage in a lengthy constitutional analysis of whether Appellant was or was not in custody and whether his Miranda rights were, in fact, violated. A review of Appellant’s statements lead us to the inescapable conclusion that he did not remain silent, but rather denied any knowledge of the crimes. At no point did Appellant state that he did not wish to talk to the officers or that he desired questioning to cease until he could speak with an attorney. Appellant quite simply denied his involvement. As such, we fail to see how Appellant’s constitutional rights were violated by Officer Denham’s testimony.
4. Criminal History
The Commonwealth introduced testimony of three police officers concerning their previous interactions with Appellant. Police Chief Fred Anderson testified about his general familiarity with Appellant. Detective Embry stated that he had obtained a photograph of Appellant for identification purposes from the Hamilton County Detention Center. Finally Detective Wallace testified that during a search of Dawn Godsey’s home, where Appellant was known to frequently stay, he discovered a Halloween mask and a pistol in the refrigerator. Again, Appellant concedes [48]*48that no objection was raised to the testimony of the officers.
Appellant contends that the officers’ testimony was violative of KRE 404 in that it served no other purpose than to imply that he had a criminal history and to show character in conformity therewith. We disagree.
Nothing in the officers’ testimony suggested that their prior contacts with Appellant were criminal in nature. Chief Anderson simply stated that he had known Appellant from “probably in the early to mid 80’s” and that he was “generally familiar with him.” Anderson’s association with Appellant could have occurred in a multitude of situations. Nor do we find Detective Embry’s testimony about the photograph of Appellant reversible error. At no point did Detective Embry inform the jury that it was a mug shot or comment on Appellant’s charges in Hamilton County. Finally, we fail to perceive the prejudice of Wallace’s reference to the pistol and Halloween mask. Possession of either, in and of itself, is not a bad act or evidence of a crime. Furthermore, even Detective Wallace stated that while finding the items in the refrigerator was “out of the ordinary,” they “really meant nothing to this case.”
We conclude that counsel made a strategic decision not to object and possibly create the inference that Appellant had a problematic history with police. Notwithstanding, we find that Appellant was not prejudiced by the evidence and the outcome of the trial would not have been different in its absence.
5. Evidence Pertaining to Use of Gloves
The Commonwealth theorized that Appellant wore surgical gloves during the commission of the crimes, thus accounting for the lack of fingerprints police found in the Williamson residence. In fact, police recovered a box of surgical gloves from Dawn Godsey’s residence. The day before trial, defense counsel learned that some types of surgical gloves are lubricated with cornstarch and that the Commonwealth had conducted testing on a box of gloves similar to those found in Godsey’s residence. The Commonwealth sought to introduce a photograph of the gloves found in Godsey’s residence, a laboratory report indicating that cornstarch was found in Williamson’s car and on her wallet, and photographs of Williamson’s car depicting the white smears. Thereafter, the defense moved to exclude any evidence relating to cornstarch.
Due to the lateness of the Commonwealth’s tests, the trial court ruled that the report was inadmissible, and that the prosecution was prohibited from presenting expert testimony concerning the use of cornstarch to lubricate surgical gloves. However, the court ruled that the photograph of the gloves and the photograph of Williamson’s car depicting the white residue were admissible. Appellant thereafter moved to exclude the photographs on the grounds that no testing had been conducted on the actual gloves found in Godsey’s residence, and that no other evidence connected those particular gloves to the crime scene. The motion was denied. At trial, Detective Rolfson testified that he processed the crime scene for fingerprints but found none that were identifiable. He further informed the jury that he found a “white substance” smeared on the console of Williamson’s car and on her wallet.
Appellant argues that photographs were improperly admitted because there was no evidence that he wore gloves during the commission of the crimes and further, there was no evidence that the gloves found in Godsey’s residence had any connection to the crime scene. We find no error.
[49]*49The prosecution’s theory was that the absence of any identifiable fingerprints was reasonably attributed to the use of gloves. Appellant had access to such gloves and, in fact, residue found in Williamson’s car and on her wallet was similar to that found on surgical gloves. Certainly, the testimony of Detective Rolfson along with the fact that Appellant had access to surgical gloves was relevant circumstantial evidence. Although the Commonwealth was properly precluded from making any reference to cornstarch, the jury could still infer that the lack of fingerprints and the presence of a white substance smeared on areas at the crime scene indicated the use of gloves during commission of the crimes.
Nor do we find the prosecutor’s reference to the gloves during closing arguments erroneous. During closing argument a prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences and propound his explanation of the evidence and why it supports a finding of guilt. Tam/me, supra at 39.
6. Alleged Exculpatory Evidence
On May 11, 1999, two weeks into Appellant’s trial, while defense counsel was reviewing notes that Detective Rolf-son had used during his testimony, counsel discovered an e-mail that was first sent to police on July 5,1998. The e-mail, sent by an individual named Art McNeil, stated that McNeil had heard another person “called Dewey” had provided Appellant transportation to the Williamson’s house on June 25th and had possibly participated in the crimes. Defense counsel immediately moved for a continuance, as well as for exclusion of the death penalty as a sanction for the nondisclosure by the Commonwealth. The trial court granted the continuance but denied the motion for sanctions.
Later the same day, a further hearing revealed that a Dewey Jump had been previously interviewed by police and had an alibi. In fact, Jump was the boyfriend of Dawn Godsey. Godsey testified that she and Jump had gone to Warsaw, Kentucky on Wednesday, June 24th, and had not returned until 4:30-5:00 p.m. the following day, after the crimes had been committed. The Commonwealth defended that the McNeil e-mail was not exculpatory evidence but merely rumor and speculation. The Commonwealth noted that all statements from Jump and Godsey had previously been provided to the defense. There is some allegation that defense counsel was already aware of the e-mail as well, however nothing in the record supports such a conclusion.
The following day, defense counsel informed the trial court that they had investigated the matter and that additional time was unnecessary. The trial thereafter continued.
We cannot agree with Appellant that the information contained in the e-mail was exculpatory or that he was prejudiced by the Commonwealth’s alleged failure to disclose such. Godsey was a defense witness and defense counsel had the opportunity to thoroughly question her about Jump’s alibi. Furthermore, no steps were even taken to discover who Art McNeil was, and whether his information was credible. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the e-mail was nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor. The trial court granted Appellant’s request for a continuance and we conclude that no further relief was warranted.
7. Humanization of Victim
There was no error in permitting Ed Strohmeier, a close friend of Williamson, to testify about their growing relationship, Williamson’s love for her [50]*50children and grandchildren, and about her hobbies and charity work.
A murder victim can be identified as more than a naked statistic, and statements identifying the victims as individual human beings with personalties and activities does not unduly prejudice the defendant or inflame the jury. Just as the jury visually observed the appellant in the courtroom, the jury may receive an adequate word description of the victim as long as the victim is not glorified or enlarged.
Bowling, supra, at 302-303; see also Hodge v. Commonwealth, Ky., 17 S.W.3d 824, 847 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1018, 121 S.Ct. 581, 148 L.Ed.2d 498 (2000). The evidence was not unduly prejudicial.
IV. INSTRUCTIONS
1. Life Without the Benefit of Probation or Parole
On August 14, 1998, Appellant was indicted for conduct which occurred in May and June of 1998. In July 1998, the provisions of HB 455 took effect, authorizing, in part, a sentence of life without the benefit of probation or parole (LWOP) in capital cases. Prior to trial, Appellant moved the trial court to apply the provisions of HB 455. The trial court ruled that the decision whether to apply the new sentencing provisions contained in HB 455 was controlled by KRS 446.110, which permits a newly enacted penalty to be applied retroactively if it is mitigating. However, in denying Appellant’s motion, the trial court concluded that the old penalties, including a sentence of death, were not “clearly mitigated” by the new penalties.
This Court subsequently held to the contrary in Commonwealth v. Phon, Ky., 17 S.W.3d 106 (2000), wherein we specifically stated that life without parole was, in fact, a lesser penalty than death and could be lawfully imposed for a capital offense committed prior to the effective date of the statute “upon the unqualified consent of the defendant.” Id. at 108.
On appeal, the Commonwealth argues that although the trial court’s rationale was erroneous, Appellant was not entitled to receive the life without parole instruction because he failed to provide the necessary unqualified consent. It is the Commonwealth’s position that “[g]iven the constitutional implications ... a request for the application of HB 455, and specifically the LWOP instruction, should be accompanied by a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver by Appellant.”
The language of KRS 446.110 provides, in part, “If any penalty, forfeiture or punishment is mitigated by any provision of the new law, such provision may, by the consent of the party affected, be applied to any judgment pronounced after the new law takes effect.” And as previously stated, we held in Phon, supra, that KRS 446.110 authorizes retroactive application of life without parole, with a defendant’s consent, since life without parole mitigates the death penalty. Id. at 107.
Appellant’s motion requesting an instruction on life without parole stated:
Obviously, the defendant could assert his right to be free from ex post facto application of an arguably more punitive law. He chooses to waive that right. Ultimately, the new KRS 532.025 does not increase the potential maximum punishment, for it is still death. It merely adds another alternative among the non-death options presented to this jury.
In fact, defense counsel informed the trial court that Appellant was “willing to make a knowing, intelligent and voluntarily (sic) waiver of any right to attack this statute as a violation of the ex post facto prohibition of the U.S. and Kentucky Constitutions.” Yet, the Commonwealth argues [51]*51that Appellant did not provide sufficient consent.
We fail to discern what more Appellant could have done to make his consent any more clear. The Commonwealth alluded during oral argument that Appellant himself, not trial counsel, had to express his unqualified consent. Such is a ludicrous proposition. Without question, Appellant’s motion satisfied the “unqualified consent” requirement we established in Phon, supra, and he was entitled to receive an instruction on life without parole. As such, this case must be remanded for a new penalty phase.
2. Duplicitous aggravating circumstances
During the penalty phase, the trial court instructed the jury on three aggravating circumstances:
(a) The offense of Murder was committed while the Defendant was engaged in the commission of Robbery in the First Degree; OR (b) The offense of Murder was committed while the Defendant was engaged in the commission of Burglary in the First Degree; OR (c) The offense of Murder was committed for the purpose of receiving money, or any other thing of monetary value, or for other profit.
Appellant objected to the third aggravating circumstance on the basis that it was duplicative of the first two. Appellant argues that the improper cumulation of aggravating circumstances caused the jury to give undue weight to the mere number of aggravators and constitutes double jeopardy. We disagree.
Aggravating circumstances are not criminal offenses subject to double jeopardy considerations. Furthermore, the jury was only required to find that the murder was committed under one aggravating circumstance. The first two aggrava-tors were clearly proper. Error, if any, in instructing on the third was harmless and did not prejudice Appellant. RCr 9.24.
3. Mitigating Circumstances
Appellant was not entitled to a complicity or accomplice instruction as mitigation. KRS 532.025(2)(b)(5) provides, “[t]he defendant was an accomplice in a capital offense committed by another person and his participation in the capital offense was relatively minor.” In denying Appellant’s request for such mitigating instruction, the trial court stated:
[F]or record purposes, there’s no evidence at this time, and, in fact, in the guilt or innocence phase there was no instruction tendered relating to the involvement of another person, that would give rise to the jury’s conclusion, in this phase, there being no additional proof, that there was someone else involved in this matter.
While the “quantum of evidence necessary to sustain a penalty phase instruction is clearly less” than the evidence required for a guilt phase instruction on the circumstances which underlie the miti-gator, Hunter, supra, a trial court is not required to give an instruct on a mitigating circumstance unless it is supported by the evidence. Smith v. Commonwealth, Ky., 845 S.W.2d 534 (1993). Other than defense counsel’s comments during opening statements, there was no evidence presented that could lead a jury to believe another individual was involved in the charged crimes. Notwithstanding, the instructions did include the catchall provision which allowed the jury to consider “any mitigating circumstances otherwise authorized by law.” KRS 532.025(2).
V. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
1. Defense Counsel’s Admissions of Guilt
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to inquire whether [52]*52Appellant knowingly and voluntarily consented to defense counsel’s admissions of guilt during opening and closing arguments. Specifically, counsel told the jury during opening statements that Appellant was a “thief and burglar,” and that although he went to Williamson’s residence on the day in question to steal from her, Appellant was not the person who murdered Williamson. Again, during closing arguments, defense counsel stated that Appellant had committed the other crimes, even the theft of Betty Geiman’s wallet, but he was not a murderer. Appellant, relying on Wiley v. Sowders, 647 F.2d 642 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1091, 102 S.Ct. 656, 70 L.Ed.2d 630 (1981), now argues that the trial court should have conducted a sua sponte inquiry as to whether Appellant consented to such a trial strategy.
In Wiley, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a petitioner’s request for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that petitioner’s counsel had admitted petitioner’s guilt as a trial tactic, but had not gained petitioner’s knowing consent prior to the admission. The Court held:
[A]n attorney may not admit his client’s guilt which is contrary to his client’s earlier entered plea of ‘not guilty’ unless the defendant unequivocally understands the consequences of the admission. Counsel may believe it tactically wise to stipulate to a particular element of a charge or to issues of proof. However, an attorney may not stipulate to facts which amount to the ‘functional equivalent’ of a guilty plea.
Id. at 649. (citations omitted). The Court concluded that the client’s knowing consent to such trial strategy must appear on the record, outside the presence of the jury, in a manner consistent with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
However, in a subsequent companion case, Wiley v. Sowders, 669 F.2d 386, 389 (6th Cir.1982), the Court clarified its prior holding, stating “an on-the-record inquiry by the trial court to determine whether a criminal defendant has consented to an admission of guilt during closing arguments represents the preferred practice. But we did not hold in Wiley, and do not now hold, that due process requires such a practice.” Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the trial court did not err in failing to conduct a sua sponte inquiry as to Appellant’s consent to his counsel’s strategy.
More importantly, while Appellant couches this issue in terms of the trial court’s duty, this is essentially an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. This court has held as a general rule that claims of ineffective assistance are not properly raised on direct appeal, but rather must proceed by way of a post-trial motion under RCr 11.42 to allow the trial court the opportunity to review the issues. Humphrey v. Commonwealth, Ky., 962 S.W.2d 870, 872 (1998). In fact, the Sixth Circuit recognized that both Wiley cases presented ineffective assistance of counsel claims. However, the Court determined that although the claims had not been preserved in the trial court, they were fairly presented to this Court, and as such, Petitioners had exhausted their state remedies. Wiley, 669 F.2d at 388.
2. Severance of Theft Charge
The trial court did not err in refusing to sever the charge of theft by unlawful taking over $300. In denying Appellant’s motion, the trial court noted that “such evidence tends to establish identity, motive, and part of a plan for criminal action. The passage of time between the offenses charged does not determine or compel severance. The character [53]*53of the offenses of May 19 and June 25 are interwoven one with the other .... ”
RCr 6.18 provides that two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment if they are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. The two incidents were intertwined in that Appellant first became a suspect in the June 25th crimes after Gail Williamson told police that some jewelry had been stolen on May 19th when Appellant was at the Williamson residence cleaning carpets. Furthermore, evidence of the earlier theft showed that Appellant did not randomly pick Williamson when he committed the June 25th crimes, rather he had gained knowledge about the Williamson residence and its contents through his employment with Kiwi Carpet Cleaning.
A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant a motion for severance and reversal is not warranted absent an abuse of that disci'etion. Davis v. Commonwealth Ky., 899 S.W.2d 487 (1995). Certainly, the evidence of the May 19th theft was prejudicial to Appellant. However, the evidence was also relevant, probative and within the requirements of RCr 6.18. No error occurred.
3. Cumulative Error
Appellant received a fundamentally fair trial and we find that the isolated instances of harmless error are insufficient to create a cumulative effect which would warrant reversal of his convictions for a new trial. Tamme, supra; compare Funk, supra.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s convictions are affirmed. This case is remanded to the Kenton Circuit Court for a new penalty phase wherein Appellant will be eligible for an instruction on life without parole.
All concur to affirm the convictions.
KELLER, J., concurs, in part, and dissents, in part, by separate opinion in which STUMBO, J., joins and JOHNSTONE, J., joins, in part as to Limitations on Voir Dire Examination.
WINTERSHEIMER, J., concurs, in part, and dissents, in part, by separate opinion.