As to these claims, we simply note that minor inconsistencies do not, of themselves, create a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt. Bowen, 241 Ill. App. 3d at 620; see also People v. Lamacki, 121 Ill.App.3d 403, 418 (1984) (quoting People v. Rankin, 73 Ill. App. 3d 661, 664-65 (1979)) (" '[M]inor inconsistencies in a rape complainant's testimony do not constitute grounds for reversal. * * * Minor variances in testimony may occur, and if so, such variances constitute mere discrepancies going only to credibility' ").
As to these claims, we simply note that minor inconsistencies do not, of themselves, create a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt. Bowen, 241 Ill. App. 3d at 620; see also People v. Lamacki, 121 Ill.App.3d 403, 418 (1984) (quoting People v. Rankin, 73 Ill. App. 3d 661, 664-65 (1979)) (" '[M]inor inconsistencies in a rape complainant's testimony do not constitute grounds for reversal. * * * Minor variances in testimony may occur, and if so, such variances constitute mere discrepancies going only to credibility' ").
Instead, the trial judge was merely observing that the victim in this case was a woman and commented that women in the Decatur, Illinois, area feared this type of attack. See People v. Lamacki, 121 Ill. App.3d 403, 418-19, 459 N.E.2d 1142, 1152 (1984) (trial court stated " 'to assess the minimum would be a flagrant disregard for the sanctity and right of the victim to walk the streets of a south suburban community' "). The defendant suggests that, since the legislature has created protected classes of people with regard to certain crimes (see, e.g., 720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(10), (b)(14) (West 1992)), the determination of whether the trial court may consider gender as an aggravating factor is a legislative function.
( People v. Daniels (1984), 129 Ill. App.3d 894, 899, 473 N.E.2d 517.) Clear and convincing evidence, however, is not synonymous with uncontradicted or unimpeached testimony. ( People v. Brown (1984), 122 Ill. App.3d 452, 455, 461 N.E.2d 71.) Consequently, minor inconsistencies in complainant's testimony or between complainant's testimony and that of other witnesses do not constitute grounds for reversal. Rather, such discrepancies affect credibility, which is a function to be judged by the trier of fact. ( People v. Lamacki (1984), 121 Ill. App.3d 403, 418, 459 N.E.2d 1142.) If the discrepancies do not detract from the reasonableness of the victim's story, the testimony may be found clear and convincing. People v. Redman (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 691, 703, 490 N.E.2d 958.
Further, "a positive identification by even one witness, who had a good opportunity to observe an accused in terms of length of time, proximity and lighting conditions, is sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty." People v. Lamacki (1984), 121 Ill. App.3d 403, 417-18, 459 N.E.2d 1142, 1152, quoting People v. Stepney (1977), 46 Ill. App.3d 328, 330, 360 N.E.2d 1206, 1208. • 2 Defendant's argument goes to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence.
A prosecutor has wide latitude in closing argument, and the trial court's determination of the propriety of that argument will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion or substantial prejudice to the defendant. ( People v. Barney (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 669, 444 N.E.2d 518.) Where allegedly improper comments do not constitute a material factor in the conviction, or where they are of such minor character that prejudice to defendant is not their probable result, the verdict will not be disturbed on appeal. ( People v. Lamacki (1984), 121 Ill. App.3d 403, 459 N.E.2d 1142, cert. denied (1984), 469 U.S. 885, 83 L.Ed.2d 193, 105 S.Ct. 256.) In applying this test, the entire argument must be considered and the complained-of comments placed in context.
Further, since the right to counsel had not attached, it was not error to proceed with the lineup despite defendant's alleged request that his attorney be present. People v. Martin (1984), 102 Ill.2d 412, 423, 466 N.E.2d 228; People v. Lamacki (1984), 121 Ill. App.3d 403, 414, 459 N.E.2d 1142, appeal denied (1984), 101 Ill.2d 549; People v. Logan (1983), 117 Ill. App.3d 753, 759, 453 N.E.2d 1317. Defendant argues that the two charges were related for the purposes of the sixth amendment right to counsel because evidence seized as a result of the theft arrest led directly to defendant's being placed in a lineup during the robbery investigation.