Following dismissal of the indictments by the trial court in each case, the State appealed. The appellate court consolidated the cases on appeal and affirmed the dismissal. ( People v. Buffalo Confectionery Co. (1978), 67 Ill. App.3d 112.) We granted the State's petition for leave to appeal.

( People v. Lawson (1977), 67 Ill.2d 449, 455, 367 N.E.2d 1244, 1246; People v. Leannah (1979), 72 Ill. App.3d 504, 391 N.E.2d 187.) That power also extends to the conduct of the prosecutor before a grand jury. ( People ex rel. Sears v. Romiti (1971), 50 Ill.2d 51, 277 N.E.2d 705; People v. Massarella (1978), 72 Ill.2d 531, 539, 382 N.E.2d 262, 266; People v. Jackson (1978), 64 Ill. App.3d 307, 310, 381 N.E.2d 316, 318; see also People v. Linzy (1978), 62 Ill. App.3d 97, 379 N.E.2d 58; People v. Buffalo Confectionery Co. (1978), 67 Ill. App.3d 112, 385 N.E.2d 407; Hughes v. Kiley (1977), 67 Ill.2d 261, 267, 367 N.E.2d 700, 702.) It is well established that the burden is on the defendant in these circumstances also to show that the prosecutorial conduct complained of resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to him ( Lawson, 67 Ill.2d 449, 459, 367 N.E.2d 1244, 1248) and, as we noted earlier, defendant has failed to do so in this case. We conclude that failure of the State's Attorney to advise the grand jury of its right to subpoena defendant, if it occurred, would not under these circumstances authorize the trial court to dismiss the indictment against him.

DIERINGER and ROMITI, JJ., concur. [EDITORS' NOTE: PAGES 1007 THROUGH 1012 CONTAINED THE OPINION PEOPLE v. BUFFALO CONFECTIONERY CO., 63 Ill. App.3d 1007 (1978) THIS OPINION IS REPLACED BY A MODIFIED OPINION FILED ON DENIAL OF REHEARING ON FEB. 2, 1979. THE MODIFIED OPINION IS PUBLISHED AT 67 Ill. App.3d 112.]