People v. Bevely

2026 IL App (5th) 231273-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: January 20, 2026
• Docket: 5-23-1273
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 231273-U NOTICE Decision filed 01/20/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-23-1273 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to not precedent except in the the filing of a Petition for IN THE limited circumstances allowed Rehearing or the disposition of under Rule 23(e)(1). the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Williamson County. ) v. ) No. 20-CF-596 ) JULIA E. BEVELY, ) Honorable ) Stephen R. Green, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE SHOLAR delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Boie and Vaughan concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The trial court did not err by admitting observational evidence regarding the bite mark on defendant’s arm. The prosecutor’s comment during rebuttal argument did not draw attention to defendant’s failure to testify. The evidence was sufficient for a jury to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶2 In Williamson County Case No. 20-CF-596, defendant, Julia E. Bevely, was charged with

three counts of first degree murder in violation of section 9-1(a) of the Criminal Code of 2012

(Code). 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a) (West 2020). Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first

degree murder and sentenced to 55 years in prison. On direct appeal, defendant raises numerous

issues. First, she argues that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a forensic

odontologist regarding a bite mark on defendant’s arm. Second, she argues that the trial court erred

by failing to instruct or admonish the jury during the State’s rebuttal argument when the State

1 commented on defendant’s failure to testify at trial. Third, she argues that the cumulative effect of

the errors deprived her of a fair trial. Finally, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to

support a conviction for first degree murder. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant’s

conviction.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND

¶4 This recitation of the facts includes only those necessary to resolve this appeal. We will

recite additional facts in the analysis section as needed to address the specific arguments of the

parties. The following evidence was presented at trial.

¶5 Defendant and Gregory Michael Beasley (Michael) began dating in 2013 and started living

together within a year. Each had a prior child. Michael’s prior child was Jade Beasley (Jade).

Michael and Jade’s mother; Jessica Bradley (Jessica), shared custody, and Jade spent every other

week living with Michael and defendant. Although they never married, defendant and Michael had

two children together. On the date in question, defendant’s child from a previous relationship and

her children with Michael were staying with other relatives. In 2018, defendant and Michael

moved into a home outside of Marion, Illinois.

¶6 On Saturday, December 5, 2020, Michael went to work at the Cracker Barrel restaurant in

Marion. He was scheduled to work from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic,

business at Cracker Barrel was slow, so Michael sometimes came home from work early.

Defendant worked for Hyatt and was scheduled to work from home from 7:30 a.m. until 12:30

p.m., with a break from 9:30 a.m. until 9:45 a.m. When Michael left for work, 11-year-old Jade

had just gone back to her bedroom after getting breakfast. Jade’s mother, Jesssica, was to pick her

up at 1 p.m. to go to birthday party.

2 ¶7 Employment records showed that defendant took an extended break from work from 9:30

a.m. until 10:15 a.m. At 10:39 a.m., defendant sent Michael a text and asked him if he was off

work. At approximately 11:05 a.m., defendant requested unapproved time off from her employer.

Defendant’s request was granted at 11:07 a.m. At 11:23 a.m., Michael replied to defendant’s text

and told her that he was still working but doubted he would “make it past 1:00.” Defendant

immediately responded, “Oh, okay.”

¶8 At approximately 12:25 p.m., defendant called 911. She reported that she went to town to

go to the store, and that when she came home, the front door was open. Defendant told the 911

operator that someone broke into her home, and that the person ran out of the home as she was

about to walk in. Defendant reported that a man, dressed in all black, fled the scene on foot.

Defendant did not see which way the man ran. She also reported that she was the only one in the

home. Although the 911 call is not perfectly intelligible, defendant told the operator that she was

the only one in the house, but that her stepdaughter, Jade, was “dead [unintelligible] in the bathtub”

and had “multiple wounds all over her.” Multiple units and an ambulance were dispatched to the

home. While enroute, one unit spoke with a woman in a black hoodie who “was walking her dog

or looking for her dog”, and another unit saw an elderly couple who were walking a dog.

¶9 Officer Charles Welge of the Marion Police Department proceeded immediately to the

scene, and he was the first to arrive. Welge entered the home and first saw defendant in the kitchen

on the phone. He also noticed “large piles” of dried blood in front of the door. Welge asked

defendant where the child was located, and defendant said, “back there” and pointed. Welge asked

again, and defendant pointed to the rear of the house and said, “the bathroom.” Welge noticed “a

large amount of blood *** on the walls, the floors; um, everywhere throughout the house.” Welge

testified that the bathroom door was “kind of cracked open.”

3 ¶ 10 Upon opening the bathroom door, Welge found “a very bloody scene” with “blood that had

been dried all over everything.” Jade was in the tub, “on her feet kneeling with her hand on the

side of the tub with her head in her hands facing the doorway.” The water was on and the tub was

filled with clear liquid. Welge turned the water off and touched Jade. Getting no response, he

pulled Jade from the tub. She “was extremely cold” and not responsive. Welge placed Jade on the

floor and checked her for injuries. Pulling back her shirt, he noticed a “large gaping hole in her

chest cavity.” The wound was not bleeding.

¶ 11 Officer Sloan, who stopped to speak with the woman in the black hoodie, arrived on the

scene. Sloan described Jade as appearing “pale gray” and testified that her “lips were bluish in

color.” Welge and Sloan pulled Jade into the hallway and attempted life saving measures. Sloan

noticed that Jade did not have a pulse and that she did not appear to be breathing. He so advised

Welge, but Welge continued doing CPR. While doing CPR, Welge noticed that a watery, diluted

bloody liquid was coming from the wound.

¶ 12 Defendant, who sat on the floor by the kitchen cabinets, asked if Jade was dead. Officer

Sloan escorted defendant to the front porch. Sloan gave her a blanket from the couch. Officer Sam

Ward of the Marion Police Department arrived and assisted Welge with the CPR before the

paramedics arrived and took over. Ward described the blood in the house as “coagulated. Another

term for that is candle wax form. It’s dried blood, basically.” After the paramedics took over,

Officer Welge made sure that no one else was in the home and then canvassed the area with other

officers, including Ward. Two K-9 officers also arrived on the scene and conducted searches of

the nearby fields.

¶ 13 When Detective Kelley of the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office arrived on the scene,

defendant was sitting on the front deck, covered in a blanket. Detective Kelley was a patrol officer

4 at the time. Upon entering the home, he noticed that there was blood “all through the house.” He

testified that “[s]ome of the blood was coagulated.” He had never seen so much blood before.

Kelley stepped outside to speak with defendant to gather information on the possible suspect.

Defendant told him Jade was sleeping when she left the house to go to town. After realizing that

she forgot her debit and credit cards, she returned home. Defendant explained that as she

approached the house, a white male in a black hoodie and gloves exited the door and attempted to

stab her. Defendant could not describe the knife or tell him what direction the assailant ran.

Defendant had a cut on her hand that was not bleeding. She declined medical attention. Because

Jade’s death appeared to be a homicide, Kelley called Detective Cindy Geittmann to the scene.

¶ 14 Detective Geittmann arrived on the scene. She noticed that the bottom of defendant’s feet

were clean despite the fact that she could see blood inside the door. When defendant showed

Geittmann wounds on her hands, Geittmann noticed a bite mark on the inside of defendant’s right

forearm that appeared fresh. Defendant also had fresh scratches on her face. Geittmann also noticed

a raised scar across defendant’s left arm in the wrist area. Geittmann was present, along with

Detective Carl Eggemeyer, for defendant’s voluntary statement at the police station that afternoon.

¶ 15 Defendant’s video recorded statement to the police was played for the jury. It had been

edited for trial to exclude breaks. During her interview, defendant told police that she last saw Jade

at 8 a.m. Defendant said that Jade was sleeping when she left the house to go to the Walmart in

Carbondale, Illinois. She stated that she left for Walmart, taking her gray Nissan Pathfinder SUV,

shortly after she logged off from work for the day. During the statement, defendant told the police

the route that she drove, and that she parked in the Walmart parking lot before she realized that

she forgot her wallet at home. Defendant was asked whether she stopped anywhere else, including

for gas. She told the detectives she had not stopped anywhere else.

5 ¶ 16 Defendant also told the police that she was “pretty sure” she locked the front door when

she left for the store. When she returned home, defendant said that she found the front door to the

house was open. She told the police that a white man, dressed in black, exited the house as she was

opening the screen door. The man was armed with a knife. Defendant told the detectives that she

first tried to grab the knife with her left hand and then reached for the knife with her right hand.

She sustained cuts to both hands. She said the man brushed past her and fled. Defendant told the

police that she entered the home and went into the master bathroom to rinse her cuts, then put a

towel over her cuts. She then went to check on Jade.

¶ 17 Defendant told the police that she heard water running and ran to the bathroom. She found

Jade slumped in the bathtub and saw knife wounds to Jade’s back. Jade was wet. Defendant said

she “kind of tapped” Jade on the shoulder, and not getting a response, she tried checking for a

pulse with two fingers on her right hand. Defendant stated that she may have gotten some of Jade’s

blood on her at that time. Defendant said that she immediately called 911.

¶ 18 When the detectives asked defendant how she got marks on her forearm, defendant told

them that she “self-harms” and that she bit herself the night before, causing the marks on her right

arm. Defendant also told the police that she was wearing flip-flops, but that they fell off as she ran

through the house. She was barefoot after that. When accused of killing Jade, defendant started

crying and said that she had not killed her. Defendant was not arrested following her interview,

and she was allowed to leave the police station.

¶ 19 During defendant’s interview at the police station, Matthew Deschamps, from the Illinois

State Police Crime Scenes Investigation Unit, collected DNA evidence from defendant. This

included taking swabs from the bite mark on defendant’s forearm. He also photographed defendant

and her injuries, including injuries to her chin and eyebrow. From the police department,

6 Deschamps went to the scene of the crime. Deschamps arrived at the scene at 7:15 p.m. Deschamps

took photos as he worked his way into the home. He did not see any signs of forced entry into the

house. Deschamps found red, bloodlike substance (RBLS) on the floors and walls throughout most

of the house, including the living room, kitchen, hallway and Jade’s bedroom. Deschamps also

noticed RBLS on the carpet in the master bedroom leading to the master bathroom. In the master

bathroom, Deschamps found an RBLS mark on the sink. During this and subsequent trips to the

scene, Deschamps collected swabs for DNA testing. Due to the amount of blood, the different

patterns “and the fact that it *** kind of encompassed the whole residence,” Deschamps requested

the assistance of a bloodstain pattern analyst.

¶ 20 In response to Deschamps’s request, Dewayne Morris, a blood spatter expert from the

Illinois State Police Division of Forensic Services, came to the house at 10:30 p.m. Morris testified

that there was a “great deal of blood shed throughout this home.” As a part of his investigation,

Morris noted 39 transfer stains, meaning that the blood did not travel through the air, rather it was

placed there by contact with a bloody object. Morris also identified 12 areas of blood spatter,

meaning that the blood “traveled through the air to arrive on the surface that it wound up on.” One

of the blood spatter patterns was a “drip trail,” meaning that the person was moving when the

blood was deposited. The drip trail ran between the front door and the bathroom. There were

transfer stains on both sides of Jade’s bedroom door, and on the bedroom wall behind the door to

Jade’s bedroom. The door would have been closed when this transfer pattern was placed on the

wall. Morris noted that there was very little visible blood in the master bathroom. There was a

small spatter on the sink that appeared to have been diluted. Morris stated that he had worked

“hundreds of death scenes with blood” and that this was “probably in the top five of blood scenes

*** for volume.”

7 ¶ 21 Deschamps attended Jade’s autopsy the morning of December 6, 2020. He collected her

clothes, and pursuant to policy, various samples from Jade, including a blood standard, buccal

swabs, fingernail scrapings and hair. The pathologist testified that Jade suffered 104 “sharp

injuries.” Jade had wounds to her back, some of which penetrated her lungs. She also sustained

four wounds to her chest that penetrated her right lung. Additional wounds were noted on her right

shoulder, and “a number of smaller, very superficial sharp injuries on the face, neck and chest

region.” Jade also had defensive wounds on both hands.

¶ 22 Following the autopsy, Deschamps returned to the home. One of the reasons for returning

to the home was so that he could spray leucocrystal violet (LCV) in order to enhance blood patterns

and to detect latent blood that is not visible to the naked eye. LCV reacts to trace amounts of blood,

even blood that has been cleaned or mixed with a cleaner, by turning purple. The purple coloration

is “a presumptive confirmatory test for the presence of blood.” Deschamps found latent footprints

in the kitchen that led to the master bedroom. More latent footprints led from the hallway to the

front of the house. The floor in front of the sink in the master bathroom reacted to the LCV and

turned purple. Deschamps testified that some of the patterns present at this location were circular.

The sink and faucet also had a positive reaction to the LCV. These patterns were not visible to the

naked eye when Deschamps first processed the scene.

¶ 23 Deschamps also processed defendant’s vehicle. He documented a RBLS on the steering

wheel cover of defendant’s Nissan Pathfinder, as well as the gear shift and the interior of the driver

door. The exterior driver’s side door handle reacted positively to the application of LCV by turning

purple.

8 ¶ 24 On his third trip to the home, Deschamps used LCV to enhance ridge details from

fingerprints, palm prints and footprints. LCV hardens as it dries and makes it easier to see the

details. Two of the footprints were ultimately matched to footprints taken from Jade at the morgue.

¶ 25 Deschamps photographed defendant again on December 8, 2020, at the Johnston City

Police Department. He took more photos of the bite mark on defendant’s arm. He also took photos

of abrasions on defendant’s left arm. These abrasions were in the same location as defendant’s

raised scar; however they were not present at the time defendant was photographed on December

5, 2020.

¶ 26 Over defendant’s objections, Dr. David Wold, a board certified forensic odontologist,

testified regarding the bite mark on defendant’s right arm. His testimony was the subject of a

pretrial motion in limine filed by defendant. Defendant sought to bar all of Dr. Wold’s testimony

based upon this court’s decision in People v. Prante, 2021 IL App (5th) 200074, aff’d in part,

rev’d in part, and remanded, 2023 IL 127241. 1 In denying defendant’s motion in limine, the trial

court distinguished this court’s decision in Prante. The court noted that Dr. Wold’s proposed

testimony, that the “mark on the defendant could not be made by the defendant as she claims in

her interview because of specific characteristics of defendant’s teeth” was not scientific evidence

subject to a Frye analysis, but instead was “observational evidence” that is not subject to Frye.

Accordingly, the court ruled that “the State can offer observation evidence of the Defendant’s

obvious teeth irregularities to suggest that the Defendant could not have made the wound as

claimed.” In response to defendant’s motion to reconsider its ruling on this issue, the court

clarified:

1 The Illinois Supreme Court decision in Prante was not decided until after defendant’s trial. This court’s decision in Prante was reversed, in part, on other grounds. Although remanded to this court for resolution of the petitioner’s other claims, no decision was rendered by this court due to the petitioner’s death. 9 “There can be no evidence offered as to the detention of the victim. There will be

no expert testimony allowed that the bite mark on the Defendant was caused by the

victim. The State can only offer observation evidence of the Defendant’s obvious

teeth irregularities compared to the wound and point out discrepancies.” (Emphasis

in original.)

¶ 27 The State later sought clarification of the court’s order, asking whether observational

evidence that Jade was missing some teeth, and what teeth were missing, would be allowed. The

State indicated that Dr. Wold would not testify that Jade’s teeth made the mark on defendant’s

arm. In issuing an oral ruling, the judge stated that the State could offer observational evidence

that the casts of Jade’s teeth were missing some teeth, but that the State could not offer evidence

that Jade’s teeth caused the injury to defendant’s arm. Defendant renewed her objection to the

evidence prior to Dr. Wold’s testimony. The court overruled her objection.

¶ 28 Dr. Wold testified that he reviewed photographs of the bite mark on defendant’s right arm,

dental impressions taken from defendant and Jade, and dental molds made from those impressions.

Dr. Wold was aware of defendant’s statement to the police that she bit herself on her right arm.

Dr. Wold made a duplicate of the master casts to preserve the integrity of the originals. With regard

to one of the photos, Dr. Wold testified that he saw a “pattern injury on [defendant’s] right forearm

that, um, through further analysis it was confirmed to be a bite mark.” Defendant’s objection to

this statement was sustained. Dr. Wold further testified that he used Adobe Photo Shop to enhance

some of the photos, and that based upon “the position of the arm and the angulation of the arches,”

he did not think it reasonable to conclude that the bite mark was self-inflicted. Wold also testified,

assuming the mark was a bite mark, that it was a “forceful” bite, in that it was not just the biting

edges, but also the inside part of the upper teeth that marked the compression of the tissue and the

10 biting edges of the lower teeth actually cut into the tissue. After looking at one of the photos Dr.

Wold had enhanced, he testified that there was an area of the injury that was not impacted by a

tooth. He then testified that the cast of Jade’s teeth had an irregularity in that she was missing a

tooth on the “upper right canine side.”

¶ 29 The State presented DNA testimony regarding the evidence collected from both defendant

and Jade. Brian Hapack, a forensic biology DNA analyst with the Illinois State Police testified that

he tested two swabs taken from the bite mark area of defendant’s arm and that they contained a

mixture of DNA. One swab matched “the information Jade Beasley possessed” and the “statistical

rarity of that foreign DNA profile in the general population” would be “about one out of 160,000

individuals.” Regarding the second swab taken from the bite mark area, Hapack could not exclude

Jade as a contributor, and the “statistical rarity of it is such that [he] would expect it to occur once

out of every 240 quintillion individuals.” Hapack also testified, on cross-examination, that he did

not have information as to the source of biological fluid that might have been present on the swab

taken from defendant’s left arm, meaning he did know whether blood or saliva were present on

the swab. Earlier testimony by another State witness explained that the crime lab limits testing of

swabs with potential saliva because they cannot physically see the how much saliva is on the swab

and because doing so could limit the remaining sample size for DNA testing.

¶ 30 Hapack also offered testimony that defendant could not be excluded as the major

contributor to the sample taken from the steering wheel cover. With regard to the sample collected

from the floor in front of the sink in the master bathroom, defendant could not be excluded as the

major contributor (statistical rarity of one out of 770 sextillion individuals) and Jade could not be

excluded as the minor contributor (statistical rarity of one out of 2.4 million individuals).

Concerning the sample collected from a bloody footprint in the hallway, it contained a single

11 contributor. Jade could not be excluded as the source (statistical rarity of one out of 85 septillion

individuals). With respect to the sample collected from the bloody footprint near the front door,

Jade could not be excluded as the major contributor (one out of 2.8 billion individuals). Hapack

also testified regarding the test results taken from Jade’s fingernail scrapings. The scrapings from

one hand came from a single source, Jade herself. The scrapings from the other hand contained a

mixture of two individuals: Jade was the major contributor, and defendant could not be excluded

as the minor contributor (one out of every 950 million individuals). Regarding the sexual assault

kit collected during Jade’s autopsy, Hapack testified that the swabs contained only Jade’s DNA.

Finally, regarding the knives seized from the kitchen sink, Hapack testified that the testing from

one of the knives was inconclusive, and the testing for the other contained male DNA that was

later determined to be contamination from Deschamps.

¶ 31 Jade’s father, Michael, testified that his relationship with defendant began in 2013, and that

they moved in with one another within a year. In describing defendant’s relationship with Jade,

Michael described it as “normal” although defendant would be “a little dismissive of” Jade.

Defendant did not tell him that she was getting off work early or going to Carbondale on December

5, 2020. After the murder, but before her arrest, defendant told Michael that she went to

Carbondale, and upon her return, she was attacked and then she found Jade. Michael also testified

that he had never seen defendant cut herself or bite herself, and that he never saw a bite mark on

her body. Michael told the jury that when he returned to the home to collect his property, nothing

was missing. On cross-examination, Michael agreed that they were “a pretty close-knit, blended

family” and that he had never seen defendant become violent during their arguments.

¶ 32 Based upon defendant’s claim that she drove to Walmart in Carbondale, the police gathered

the video from the Walmart parking lot and from businesses along the route that defendant claimed

12 she took to Walmart. Contrary to defendant’s claim that she parked in the Walmart parking lot

before realizing that she forgot her debit and credit cards, the police did not see a vehicle matching

defendant’s pull into the lot. Except for two residential cameras and video from a Huck’s gas

station in Marion, none of other surveillance videos along the route contained footage of a car

matching defendant’s during the relevant time period.

¶ 33 Aaron Newlin lived on Khoury League Road, “right around the corner” from defendant’s

home. On the date in question, Newlin became aware that the police were looking for a male

subject. He brought his children into the house and proceeded to watch and review his security

videos. He never saw a man dressed in black on his video cameras. Newlin later learned the police

were looking for footage of a specific vehicle. Although the time stamp on his cameras was 44

minutes fast, one of his cameras captured a gray SUV traveling westbound at approximately 11:36

a.m. The video also showed a gray vehicle traveling eastbound at approximately 11:48 a.m. The

second residential camera was from a home on Fietsam Road. The video from this camera showed

a gray SUV traveling westbound at approximately 11:38 a.m. and then traveling eastbound at

approximately 11:46 a.m.

¶ 34 Video from a Huck’s convenience store in Marion was also recovered. This video showed 2

a vehicle matching defendant’s SUV pull up next to a pump at approximately 11:42 a.m. The

driver pulled an object out of the SUV and place it in the trash can. Other testimony established

that the Huck’s convenience store was six to seven minutes from defendant’s home. After the

police determined that the trash from Huck’s was previously picked up, they conducted a search

of the local landfill where the trash was taken. Using GPS data from the garbage trucks, the search

was limited to that portion of the landfill where it was likely the Huck’s garbage was dumped.

2 The video from Huck’s is not a part of the record on appeal. 13 Over the course of two days, approximately two dozen people searched through the trash. The

search yielded two broken knife blades and a shower curtain. None of these items were linked to

either the Huck’s or the crime.

¶ 35 Defendant’s cell phone records were subpoenaed. Evidence was presented that defendant’s

cell phone was at the house until shortly after 11:32 a.m. It began moving at approximately 11:36

a.m. and moved past Newlin’s residence. At approximately 11:38 a.m., it moved past the home on

Fietsam Road, heading west, before stopping at Huck’s at 11:42 a.m. At 11:46 a.m., the cell phone

was again near the home on Fietsam Road before passing by the Newlin residence at 11:48 a.m.

Defendant’s cell phone was back at the house at about 11:53 a.m. where it remained until past

12:30 p.m. Defendant’s cell phone neither appeared to travel past Huck’s nor to travel to the

Walmart in Carbondale. Evidence was also presented that the Carbondale Walmart was

approximately 19 miles from defendant’s home and that the drive to the Walmart would take about

29 minutes.

¶ 36 Jessica Bradley, Jade’s mother, testified that Jade and defendant “got along as best as those

two types of people could get along.” She also offered that, in response to her asking whether

defendant was nice to Jade, Jade would respond, “like, Yeah. Everything’s fine.” Jessica testified

that, on December 5, 2020, she was supposed to pick Jade up at 1 p.m. to take her to her two year

old half-sister’s birthday party. She tried to contact Jade that day but received no response. The

police were there when she arrived at the house and stopped her from entering the home. Jessica

saw defendant sitting on the porch, hunched over, staring straight ahead and rocking slightly back

and forth. When the EMT’s brought Jade out on a stretcher, she looked “incredibly pale” and her

arm was “kind of flopping off the side of the stretcher.” She noticed “what looked to be

14 bloodstaining on the sheet” that was covering Jade’s body. Jessica testified “that was the last time

I saw her.”

¶ 37 Jessica also testified that she had conversations with Jade about defending herself. Due to

an increase in sex trafficking and abductions in the area, she told Jade “that if anyone *** tried to

do anything to her *** , that she was to kick, bite, scratch, scream, claw, pull hair, do whatever

she had to do to try to get away from that person. And if she knew that she was not going to get

away, she needed to make sure that she took a part of the person with her or that she left *** part

of herself on that person.”

¶ 38 As a part of her case in chief, defendant called Dr. Karl Reich, an expert in forensic DNA

and forensic biology. 3 Dr. Reich noted that the State had not tested the swabs taken from

defendant’s arms to determine the presence of bodily fluids, such as blood or saliva. Per Dr. Reich,

blood and saliva are “rich sources of DNA.” Since the swab from the bite mark on defendant’s left

arm contained roughly the same amount of DNA from defendant and Jade, Reich opined that “it’s

unlikely that either of the DNA comes from a rich source, like, saliva or blood.” He further testified

that a person wrapped in a household blanket used by others could have someone else’s DNA

transferred onto them. Regarding the fingernail scrapings taken from Jade, Dr. Reich opined that

the amount of defendant’s DNA found there was consistent with touch DNA and that he would

expect that a greater amount of DNA had it been the result of someone being scraped during a

violent assault. Dr. Reich also noted that Jade’s fingernail scrapings contained .0007 nanograms

of male DNA, which is a sufficient amount for testing. During cross-examination, Dr. Reich

testified that “science does not allow the determination of a mark as coming from a bite” and that

3 To accommodate Dr. Reich’s schedule, he was called as a defense witness during the State’s case in chief. Immediately following his testimony, the State recalled Brian Hapack to rebut Dr. Reich’s testimony. 15 “there is certainly no way to compare bite marks.” He also testified that the presence of DNA does

not explain when or how the DNA was deposited on the sampled item.

¶ 39 Defendant also called several character witnesses who testified that they had never seen

defendant act violently or use corporal punishment. The witnesses testified that when upset or

angry, defendant would cry or withdraw.

¶ 40 After the close of the evidence, one of the jurors reported that she thought she was being

recorded by a woman in a vehicle that was marked “Justice for Jade.” The juror brought the matter

to the attention of the bailiff and identified the woman as being present in the courtroom. The court

had off the record discussions with both attorneys before having an on-the-record discussion in the

presence of the defendant. The court explained that it discussed the matter with the attorneys, and

that they decided to let the judge question the juror in his chamber and outside the presence of the

parties and the other jurors. The judge explained:

“The question would be about that specific incident and whether that incident

would impact that person’s ability to be fair and impartial in this case. Another

question would be whether she communicated her observation to any other juror or

to any other person. Depending upon that answer, more things may need to be done.

Potentially she could say that she could be fair, and if she does, that would end the

inquiry. If she says she cannot be fair, then I believe, by agreement, both sides are

going to excuse that particular person from jury service, and that person would be

released now.”

The court confirmed that defendant discussed this matter with her attorney and that she was in

agreement with the procedure. Defendant herself offered to speak with the woman in question,

telling the court that she was a friend. The judge then questioned the juror in the presence of a

16 court reporter. Based upon the information he received while questioning the first juror, the judge

questioned three additional jurors. All four jurors indicated that they could be fair and impartial.

¶ 41 Defense counsel asked to see a copy of the transcript from the trial court’s conversations

with the jurors, which was allowed. Following her review of the transcript, defense counsel moved

for a mistrial, believing that the proceedings “may be tainted.” That motion was denied and the

parties proceeded to closing arguments.

¶ 42 During closing argument, the State noted that “the problem with [defendant’s] Walmart

story is her cell phone” because defendant told the police that she had her cell phone with her, but

that the evidence demonstrated that defendant did not go to Walmart. The State argued defendant

did not tell the police that she stopped at Huck’s, and yet the video from Huck’s showed defendant

pulling into Huck’s, getting out of her vehicle and throwing something away before pulling back

onto the road and heading in the direction of her house.

¶ 43 In defendant’s closing argument, defense counsel argued that “the State expects you to

believe that [defendant] committed this horrible crime, collected all of the evidence, put it in

something that we think we can see on the Huck’s video that might have been somewhere [sic] the

size of a small bag.” Defense counsel later argued, that “[t]he only crime that [defendant]

committed was that she didn’t make it all the way to Carbondale.” Defense counsel acknowledged

that the Huck’s video showed “a car with a phone in it. It belongs to Julie.”

¶ 44 The following exchange occurred at the outset of the State’s rebuttal argument:

[THE STATE]: What just happened? What? Two weeks. Everything you

heard in this courtroom, the first time you hear anything—anything about Julia

going to anywhere but Walmart comes out of her attorney’s mouth. Not her own.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, your Honor.

17 [THE STATE]: Not her own mouth.

[THE COURT]: What’s the objection?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The defendant has the right to remain silent.

[THE COURT]: Well—

[THE STATE]: I will move on, your Honor. Thank you.”

The trial court never ruled on defendant’s objection.

¶ 45 The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder. Following a hearing on defendant’s

posttrial motion, the trial court sentenced defendant to 55 years in prison. Defendant’s motion to

reconsider sentence was denied on December 8, 2023. Defendant’s timely notice of appeal was

filed on December 12, 2023.

¶ 46 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 47 Defendant raises numerous issues on appeal. First, she argues that the trial court erred by

admitting the testimony of Dr. David Wold, the forensic odontologist who testified regarding a

bite mark on defendant’s arm. Second, defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to

instruct or admonish the jury during the State’s rebuttal argument when the State commented on

defendant’s failure to testify at trial. Third, defendant argues that the cumulative effect of the errors

deprived defendant of a fair trial. Finally, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to

support a conviction for first degree murder. We address each argument in turn and ultimately

affirm.

¶ 48 First, we consider defendant’s claims as it relates to bite mark evidence. Defendant argues

that the trial court erred by admitting Dr. Wold’s testimony. “The admission of evidence lies within

the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will review the trial court’s ruling

only for an abuse of discretion.” People v. Leak, 398 Ill. App. 3d 798, 824 (2010). As noted above,

18 Dr. Wold’s testimony was the subject of a defense motion in limine. In his motion, defendant

argued that “[f]orensic odontology and bite mark evidence is no longer generally accepted within

the scientific community as a mean of identification or as a means to identify a mark or wound as

a human bite mark.” In support of her contention that Wold’s testimony should be barred,

defendant relied upon this court’s decision in Prante, 2021 IL App (5th) 200074.

¶ 49 In Prante, the petitioner filed a petition for leave to file a successive postconviction

petition, claiming that developments in the field of bite mark evidence called into question its

continued validity and reliability. Id. ¶ 1. The trial court denied the petition for leave to file. Id. In

his appeal to this court, we noted that during petitioner’s trial, State experts testified that the

injuries on the murder victim were human bite marks and that petitioner’s teeth were consistent

with the victim’s injury, with one expert testifying that petitioner’s “ ‘teeth could have made the

bite mark. Period.’ ” Id. ¶ 29. This court also noted that petitioner called an expert at trial who

testified that the injury to the victim “ ‘could be a bite mark’ but that these marks also could have

been caused by other trauma, such as through strangulation, or could have been left by jewelry or

a heel.” Id. ¶ 38. This court then noted that, in support of his petition for leave to file a successive

postconviction petition, petitioner had submitted “affidavits and other documents suggesting that

the current scientific community recognizes a lack of consensus on whether forensic dentists have

the ability to reliably identify injuries as human bite marks or to associate those bite marks with

an individual.” Id. ¶ 51.

¶ 50 Noting that the admission of scientific expert testimony in Illinois is governed by the

standard expressed in Frye v. United States (293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)) (Prante, 2021 IL App

(5th) 200074, ¶ 65), this court also noted that not all expert testimony is subject to the Frye

analysis, rather it is only scientific evidence that is subjected to that standard. Id. ¶ 69. The Prante

19 court considered the history of the admissibility of bite mark evidence in Illinois beginning with

People v. Milone 43 Ill. App. 3d 385 (1976), “the seminal case on the admission of bite mark

evidence in Illinois” and “the first reported case in Illinois to discuss the issues raised in Frye.” Id.

¶ 70.

¶ 51 In Milone, the defendant challenged the admissibility of bite mark evidence that was used

to identify him as the murderer, arguing that bite mark evidence “had not gained general

acceptance in the particular field in which it belonged, as required by Frye.” Prante, 2021 IL App

(5th) 200074, ¶ 70 (citing Milone, 43 Ill. App. 3d at 394). The defendant in Milone also “argued

that bite mark identification evidence failed to meet the ‘prior reliability’ test utilized by the Illinois

Supreme Court” in People v. Jennings, 252 Ill. 534 (1911). Id. ¶ 70. Ultimately, the Milone court

found no error in the admission of bite mark evidence that was used to identify the defendant as

the murderer. Id. Because bite mark evidence comparison “ ‘involves only a visual comparison

between the wound and the detention of the defendant’ ” and because bite mark evidence lacks an

“ ‘intermediate mechanical stage in which the reliability [of the evidence] may be questioned[,]’ ”

the Milone court found “ ‘[s]uch evidence is more analogous to footprint, fingerprint, and hair,

comparisons which are made for purposes of identification.’ ” Id. ¶ 70 (quoting Milone, 43 Ill.

App. 3d at 396.)

¶ 52 The Prante court rejected the Milone court’s limited application of Frye, finding that

“[t]oday, in determining whether Frye applies, courts examine whether the expert’s testimony is

the “ ‘product of scientific tests or studies.’ ” Id. ¶ 76 (quoting People v. McKown, 226 Ill. 2d 245,

254 (2007)). The Prante court found that “[t]here is no requirement that the scientific methodology

employed by the expert involve an ‘intermediate mechanical stage’ for Frye to apply.” Id.

Accordingly, this court concluded that “bite mark evidence is ‘scientific evidence’ within the

20 meaning of Frye because it purports to employ a scientific process requiring examination and

analysis by an expert trained in interpreting the evidence.” Id.

¶ 53 As noted above, in ruling on defendant’s motion in limine, the trial court ruled that Prante

would preclude the admission of “testimony that would lend to a conclusion that the wound was

made by a human or allow comparison evidence that a particular set of teeth made that wound.”

Accordingly, the trial court ruled that the State could not present such testimony. Relying on

Milone, however, the court also ruled that the State could present “observational evidence of the

Defendant’s obvious teeth irregularities to suggest that the Defendant could not have made the

wound as claimed” by defendant in her interview with the police. As also noted, the court later

agreed that the State could present observational evidence of irregularities to Jade’s teeth, provided

that Dr. Wold would not testify that Jade’s teeth made the wound on defendant’s arm.

¶ 54 Because defendant herself told the police that the injury on her arm was a bite mark, albeit

self-inflicted, the issue before this court is whether Dr. Wold’s observational testimony that Jade

was missing a tooth and whether there was any place on the injury that was not impacted by a tooth

was error. Under the specific facts of this case, we find this evidence was observational evidence

consistent with this court’s decision in Prante. See id. ¶ 95, n.3 (noting that the National Academy

of Science’s 2009 report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward

[https://perma.cc/2PTA-F47C] acknowledged that “forensic odontologists understand the anatomy

of teeth and the mechanics of biting and can retrieve sufficient information for bite marks on skin

to assist in criminal investigations and provide testimony at criminal trials” even though there was

no scientific basis for the conclusion that bite mark comparisons can result in a conclusive match.)

Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing this testimony.

21 ¶ 55 We understand defendant’s concern that observational evidence of this type allows the

State, in the absence of a Frye hearing, to use an expert to compare a bite mark to known dentitions

and testify that one dentition is consistent with a wound and that another dentition is inconsistent

with a wound. As noted by the Prante court: “The persuasiveness of seemingly objective, truthful

scientific evidence cannot be ignored or understated. The recognition that ‘scientific’ evidence

‘carries a greater weight in the eyes of the jury’ because it is ‘equated with the truth’ is precisely

why Illinois courts require scientific evidence to meet the Frye standard.” Id. ¶ 84 (quoting People

v. McKown, 226 Ill. 2d 245, 254 (2007)). However, whether this court’s decision in Prante should

be extended to preclude observational evidence of a known bite mark when compared to a

defendant’s or victim’s dentition need not be decided based upon the facts of this case. Even if the

admission of Dr. Wold’s testimony in the absence of meeting the Frye standard was error, it is

harmless error due to the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt as discussed below,

including the fact that Jade’s DNA was found on the wound itself.

¶ 56 Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct or admonish the jury

during its rebuttal argument when the prosecutor stated: “What just happened? What? Two weeks.

Everything you heard in this courtroom, the first time you hear anything—anything about Julia

going to anywhere but Walmart comes out of her attorney’s mouth. Not her own.” As noted above,

defense counsel objected, but the State “moved on” before the trial court ruled on the objection.

Defendant properly preserved this argument in her posttrial motion.

¶ 57 During the hearing on defendant’s posttrial motion, the prosecutor defended her remarks,

claiming that defense counsel invited her comment by presenting the jury “with a defense they

never heard.” The prosecutor asked, “Am I supposed to let counsel just come up with an alibi and

give it to the jury, and I can’t rebut that?” The prosecutor also suggested that the reference to “not

22 out of her mouth” referred to the fact that defendant’s statement had been played for jury and that

defendant failed to tell the police that she went to the gas station. In ruling on this issue, the trial

court commented:

“At the time that that occurred, my memory is similar to the State’s that

defense counsel, whether you meant it or not, make a reference of a stop that wasn’t

in evidence at all. The only place that that could be inferred from is from the tape

of the defendant. There was no testimony. At the same time, when [the prosecutor]

was making her comments, I did initially think that she was going too far. But then

when I considered it, I didn’t think so. I don’t think that she was commenting at all

about the defendant’s refusal to take the stand in Court, so that will be denied.”

¶ 58 In response to defendant’s arguments, the State contends that the prosecutor’s comments

were invited by defense counsel’s closing argument and in the alternative, if the prosecutor’s

comments were error, they were harmless error.

¶ 59 “An accused has a constitutional right not to testify as a witness in his own behalf [citation

omitted], and the prosecutor is forbidden to make direct or indirect comment on the exercise of

that right.” People v. Arman, 131 Ill. 2d 115, 125-26 (1989) (citing Griffin v. California, 380 U.S.

609 (1965), People v. Ramirez, 98 Ill. 2d 439, 450-51 (1983) and People v. Dixon, 91 Ill. 2d 346,

350 (1982)). “In determining whether improper comment has been made on a defendant’s failure

to take the witness stand and testify, a court will consider whether the reference was intended or

calculated to direct the attention of the jury to the defendant’s neglect to avail himself of his legal

right to testify.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 126 (citing Dixon, 91 Ill. 2d at 350;

People v. Hopkins, 52 Ill. 2d 1, 6 (1972); People v. Morgan, 112 Ill. 2d 111, 133-34 (1986)). “In

making that determination, a reviewing court should examine the challenged comments in the

23 context of the entire proceeding.” Id. (citing United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 33 (1988);

Hopkins, 52 Ill. 2d at 6).

¶ 60 During closing argument, defense counsel acknowledged that defendant did not make it to

the Carbondale Walmart. Defense counsel argued, “The only crime [defendant] committed was

that she didn’t make it all the way to Carbondale.” She followed this up by acknowledging that

defendant’s car and cell phone were seen on video at the Huck’s convenience store. This

acknowledgment was contrary to defendant’s statement to the police during which she denied

stopping anywhere while driving to Walmart and was the first time that jury heard anything from

the defense acknowledging the stop at Huck’s.

¶ 61 We find no error in the State’s response to defense counsel’s argument. The jury heard

nearly two hours of defendant’s statement to the police during which she told the police, more than

once, that she had not stopped anywhere on her claimed trip to the Carbondale Walmart. During

the hearing on defendant’s posttrial motion, the prosecutor stated that the comment was invited by

defense counsel’s argument, and that her comments were in reference to defendant’s two hour

statement to the police during which defendant failed to mention her stop at Huck’s. Under these

circumstances, we do not find that the prosector’s comments were intended or calculated to direct

the jury’s attention to the defendant’s failure to testify.

¶ 62 We next consider defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to prove her guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant argues: (1) the “State only introduced speculative evidence

of defendant’s opportunity and means to commit the murder”; (2) the time of death was

“uncertain”; (3) the DNA evidence “was insufficient to prove anything”; (4) defendant’s failure to

tell the police that she stopped at the Huck’s “was insufficient to prove anything”; (5) the evidence

recovered from the landfill was never connected to Jade’s murder; and (6) the evidence presented

24 did not support the State’s claim that defendant “could have single-handedly committed the brutal

murder herself.” The State responds, arguing that defendant asks this court to reweigh the

evidence. We agree with the State.

¶ 63 When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court must

determine “ ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,

any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) People v. Bush, 2023 IL 128747, ¶ 33 (quoting People v. Collins,

106 Ill. 2d 237, 261 (1985)). “Under this standard, a reviewing court must allow all reasonable

inferences from the record in favor of the prosecution.” People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 334

(2010) (citing People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274, 280 (2004)). “When presented with a

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, it is not the function of this court to retry the

defendant.” Id. (citing People v. Schmalz, 194 Ill. 2d 75, 80 (2000)).

¶ 64 This standard of review “is applicable in all criminal cases, regardless of whether the

evidence is direct or circumstantial.” People v. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363, 374 (1992) (citing

People v. Pintos, 133 Ill. 2d 286, 291 (1989)). Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support “a

conviction if it satisfies proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of the crime charged.”

Id. at 379. This “standard gives ‘full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts

in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to

ultimate facts.’ ” Id. at 375 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). For this

reason, a reviewing court “will not substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder on questions

involving the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses.” Id. (citing People v.

Young, 128 Ill. 2d 1, 51 (1989)). We “will not reverse a criminal conviction unless the evidence is

25 so unreasonable, so improbable, or so unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of the

defendant’s guilt.” Id. (citing Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261).

¶ 65 Defendant argues that the State’s evidence regarding defendant’s opportunity and means

was speculative. We disagree. The evidence presented established that Jade was alive when her

father, Michael, left the house that morning, and that defendant was the only other person in the

home. Defendant’s arguments about the possibility of an intruder are based solely upon her self-

serving statement to the police, parts of which were demonstrably false. While enroute to the scene,

police looked for people matching the alleged assailant’s description and conducted canine

searches of the area for signs of a suspect. There were no signs of forced entry, and nothing

appeared to be stolen from the home. The swabs from Jade’s sexual assault kit contained only her

DNA, suggesting no sexual assault occurred. In short, no evidence supporting defendant’s claim

of an intruder was found. Being the only person in the home besides Jade, the evidence established

that defendant had the opportunity to commit this offense.

¶ 66 Regarding the means, although none of the recovered knives were tied to the murder,

several knives were present in the home, and two knives were recovered from the search at the

landfill. Insofar as the time of Jade’s death is concerned, the evidence demonstrated that she was

killed sometime between when her father left the home and before the police arrived following

defendant’s 12:24 p.m. call to 911. We note that when the police arrived shortly after 12:30 p.m.,

they observed that some of the blood was already dried and other pools of blood were coagulating

or “waxy.” This suggests that Jade’s murder did not occur between the time defendant left the

home at approximately 11:36 a.m. and the arrival of the police less than an hour later.

¶ 67 Considering the DNA evidence, Jade’s DNA was found on defendant’s arm and in the

location of what defendant claimed was a self-inflicted bite mark. Additionally, defendant’s DNA

26 was found under Jade’s fingernails. While defendant argues that the amount of DNA recovered

from these two locations is consistent with household or touch DNA, it is also reasonable to infer

that the DNA recovered from the wound on defendant’s arm was consistent with a struggle during

which Jade bit defendant and the DNA recovered from under Jade’s fingernails was consistent

with scratches on defendant’s chin and above her eye. We note that defendant told the police that

she rinsed her hands before checking on Jade, and that the first officer on the scene found Jade in

the bathtub with the water running and the tub full of clear liquid. We also note that Jade’s mother,

Jessica, testified that she taught Jade that, if attacked, she should “kick, bite, scratch, scream, claw,

pull hair, do whatever she had to do to get away from that person. And if she knew that she was

not going to get away, she needed to make sure that she took a part of that person with her or that

she left *** a part of herself on that person.” Contrary to defendant’s argument that the DNA

evidence “was insufficient to prove anything”, a jury could reasonably infer that Jade did exactly

as her mother told her, and that the DNA found under Jade’s fingernails and on defendant’s arm

was the result of Jade’s attempts to defend herself from defendant’s attack.

¶ 68 With regard to the traces of blood containing both Jade’s and defendant’s DNA being found

on the floor of the master bathroom, defendant argues that traces of blood in a bathroom that is

used several times a day is not uncommon. Defendant also argues there was no evidence the blood

had been deposited there the day of the murder and, further, there was no evidence that any

attempts were made to clean the bathroom that day. We disagree. The evidence demonstrated that

blood tracked from the living room into the master bedroom and toward the bathroom. After

application of LCV, traces of blood and Jade’s DNA were found on the bathroom floor in front of

the vanity. Crime scene investigator Deschamps testified that the LCV stains from the floor of the

master bathroom contained “patterns” and that some of the patterns were “circular.” Photos

27 admitted into evidence and published to the jury depict the purple LCV stains (representing the

presumptive blood) that appear to have been wiped in a semi-circular pattern. Defendant told the

police that after entering the house and before checking on Jade, she went into the bathroom and

quickly rinsed her hands. Given that the only visible RBLS in the bathroom was a diluted drop of

blood on the vanity top that matched defendant’s DNA, it is reasonable to infer that defendant

tracked Jade’s blood into the bathroom and cleaned the bathroom, and herself, before disposing of

evidence at Huck’s.

¶ 69 The evidence also showed that LCV testing revealed blood on the door handle to

defendant’s car and the RBLS swabbed from the interior of defendant’s car contained defendant’s

DNA. The jury could reasonably infer that, contrary to her statement to the police, defendant was

already bleeding at the time that she left the house for her trip to Huck’s, and not that she was

injured by an intruder after she returned home.

¶ 70 We acknowledge that the two knives and the shower curtain recovered from the landfill

were not directly tied to the scene or to defendant. Testimony at trial, however, indicated that these

items were compacted in the landfill with contaminated soil and medical waste. It is reasonable to

infer that the contamination of these objects precluded meaningful forensic testing of these items.

That does not mean, as defendant maintains, that this evidence was irrelevant. These items had

some probative value given that they were found in the landfill and in a location where it was

believed the garbage truck would have deposited the trash collected from the Huck’s where

defendant was seen on video throwing items away.

¶ 71 Defendant also argues the evidence does not support the State’s theory that defendant was

physically capable of killing Jade and placing her body in the bath tub. Defendant’s argument is

based upon testimony that Jade was “a couple of inches taller” than defendant and that Jade “maybe

28 weighed a little bit more.” Since no evidence was presented as to defendant’s physical capabilities

or limitations, this argument is based upon pure speculation.

¶ 72 Finally, defendant argues that her failure to tell the police that she stopped at Huck’s was

insignificant, especially given the stress and trauma she would have felt during her interview.

Defendant goes so far as to suggest that her failure to mention this stop hurt her because her

presence on the Huck’s video “would have helped her substantiate her alibi.” We disagree. A jury

could reasonably conclude that defendant failed to mention her trip to Huck’s because she knew

that she disposed of evidence at the gas pumps, and that informing the police of her stop would

have led to a timely search of the trash and the discovery of evidence of defendant’s guilt.

¶ 73 Of significance when considering the weight of the evidence is defendant’s statement to

the police. “A defendant’s false exculpatory statement may be admissible to establish the

defendant’s consciousness of guilt.” People v. McQueen, 115 Ill. App. 3d 833, 837 (1983).

Defendant told the police that she drove to Carbondale Walmart, going so far as to tell the police

the route she drove to get there. Despite being asked if she stopped for gas, defendant denied any

such stop. The evidence demonstrated that defendant did not make the nearly 30 minute drive to

the Carbondale Walmart. Instead, the evidence showed that defendant drove to the Huck’s

convenience store six to seven minutes from her home, deposited something in the trash, and

returned home at approximately 11:53 a.m., approximately 17 minutes after she left the house.

Defendant told the police that, after a brief struggle with an armed intruder exiting the house, she

went into the master bathroom, quickly washed the cuts on her hand, checked on Jade and called

911. Defendant’s statement to the police did not explain the more than 30 minute delay between

her return to the house and her 911 call.

29 ¶ 74 A jury is not required to accept a defendant’s version of what happened at the time of the

crime. People v. Lester, 145 Ill. App. 3d 720, 738 (1986). Rather, a jury is allowed to “consider

the surrounding circumstances and the probability or the improbability of the defendant’s story.”

Id. Succinctly stated, “[w]hen the defendant elects to explain the circumstances [of an offense],

[s]he is bound to tell a reasonable story or be judged by its improbabilities and inconsistencies.”

Id. A jury could easily find parts of defendant’s statement to the police to be improbable, and as

noted above, other parts were demonstrably false. The evidence presented at trial was not “so

unreasonable, improbable, or so unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt” of defendant’s

guilt. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d at 375. Indeed, even when disregarding Dr. Wold’s testimony

regarding the bite mark, this court finds the evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming.

¶ 75 Finally, defendant argues that cumulative errors warrant a new trial. In addition to her

claims regarding the bite mark testimony and the prosecutor’s improper comment during rebuttal

argument, defendant raises additional claims that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a

mistrial based upon issues that arose with the jury prior to closing arguments. Defendant does not

argue that these additional errors rise to the level of independently reversible error.

¶ 76 As noted above, a juror reported that she believed that a person associated with defendant

recorded her in the parking lot. Based upon this information, and after consulting with the State,

defense counsel and defendant herself, the court conducted voir dire of this juror. Before doing so,

the court stated that it would ask the juror what happened and determine whether the occurrence

impacted the juror’s ability to be fair and impartial. The court also told the parties that it would

ask whether this juror had “communicated her observation to any other jurors or to any other

person” and that “[d]epending upon that answer, more things may need to be done.” Also as noted

30 above, based upon the fact that the juror indicated that she had spoken with other jurors, the judge

questioned three additional jurors.

¶ 77 Defendant now argues that the court conducted the voir dire of the additional jurors without

prior notice or consultation. We disagree. It is readily apparent that the trial court considered that

questioning of additional jurors may be necessary depending upon whether the first juror had

discussed the matter with other jurors. Furthermore, after questioning the jurors, the judge

informed counsel as to what he learned. Defense counsel asked for the opportunity to review the

transcript of the voir dire prior to making any motion. After reviewing the transcript, defense

counsel moved for a mistrial based upon “what occurred that is fully of record in chambers as to

some of the issues that arose this morning with the jury. We believe at this point that the

proceedings may actually be tainted.” Defense counsel acknowledged that the court conducted

voir dire “by agreement of all the parties and by [defendant].” Defense counsel did not raise an

objection regarding the court interviewing the additional jurors at that time, although she raised it

in the posttrial motion.

¶ 78 We fail to find error in the trial court’s actions involving the supplemental voir dire of the

jurors. Defendant agreed to the supplemental voir dire of the juror who reported her belief that the

jury was being video recorded. As noted, the judge told the parties, “Another question would be

whether she communicated her observation to any other juror or to any other person. Depending

upon that answer, more things may need to be done.” (Emphases added.) The parties, and

defendant herself, agreed to this process. The record supports the conclusion that defendant was

provided notice that additional jurors may need to be questioned, and defendant did not object at

that time or after reviewing the transcript of the court’s interactions with those jurors.

31 ¶ 79 Defendant’s posttrial motion raised additional issues with two of the jurors, Jurors 4 and

11. Juror 4 was one of the jurors questioned by the trial court regarding the video recording inquiry.

During his supplemental voir dire, he disclosed that he knew “some of the people in that family.”

Defendant did not argue this issue when she moved for a mistrial but only raised it in her posttrial

motion. Defendant also argues that during jury selection, Juror 4 failed to disclose that he knew

members of the victim’s family and that he further failed to disclose that he has a relative working

in law enforcement. Finally, regarding Juror 11, defendant argues that she failed to disclose, during

jury selection, that she knew one of the witnesses.

¶ 80 We first address defendant’s argument regarding her claim that Juror 4 failed to disclose

that he knew a member of the victim’s family. We find that defendant forfeited this argument.

“Ordinarily, a defendant must both specifically object at trial and raise the specific issue again in

a posttrial motion to preserve any alleged error for review.” People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455, 470

(2005) (citing People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988)). Defense counsel had the transcript of

Juror 4’s supplemental voir dire with the judge but failed to raise this as an issue at the time that

she learned this information. Forfeiture notwithstanding, we note that defendant’s argument is

premised upon the assumption that Juror 4 was referring to Jade’s family. Reviewing the record,

this court cannot conclude that Juror 4 referred to either the victim’s family or defendant’s family.

Taken in context, it is entirely possible that Juror 4 could have been speaking about the family of

the woman who was believed to be video recording the jurors, a friend of the defendant.

¶ 81 We next consider defendant’s claim that Juror 4 failed to disclose that he had a cousin who

worked at the Williamson County Jail and Juror 11 failed to disclose that she was Facebook friends

with a potential witness. “Both the United States and Illinois Constitutions guarantee an accused a

jury that is impartial [citations], which means a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely

32 on the evidence before it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326,

353 (1997).

¶ 82 During the hearing on defendant’s posttrial motion, the State noted that there was no

evidence that Juror 4 had a relative who worked at the jail, the nature of the relationship between

Juror 4 and the relative, or if they have spoken with each other in the last 20 years. Defense counsel

stated that the individual was a correctional officer at the jail. We note that there is no affidavit or

any evidence in support of defendant’s contention. Thus, the record is unclear as to whether Juror

4 in fact has a relative employed at the county jail, and if so, the nature of their relationship.

Regarding Juror 11 failure to disclose being Facebook friends with a potential witness, we note

that the court never indicated which side may be calling which witness, and we further note that

Marks did not testify at trial. During jury selection, both Juror 4 and Juror 11 stated that they would

be fair and impartial in rendering a verdict and that they would decide the case only on the facts,

evidence and the law presented in court. Based upon the record before this court, we cannot find

defendant has submitted evidence to suggest that she was deprived of a fair and impartial jury.

¶ 83 Accordingly, having found no error regarding the bite mark testimony, the prosecutor’s

comment in rebuttal, or with regard to the jury, there can be no cumulative error. People v. Sims,

2019 IL App (3d) 170417, ¶ 60. For these reasons, we reject defendant’s claim of cumulative error

and affirm defendant’s conviction.

¶ 84 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 85 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Williamson County Circuit Court is

affirmed.

¶ 86 Affirmed.