Further, photographs published to the jury showed the victim's lower torso and buttocks lying on a curling iron. Defendant's reliance on People v. Linscott, 142 Ill.2d 22 (1991), and People v. McCollum, 239 Ill. App.3d 593 (1992), is misplaced. In Linscott, the State introduced evidence that the defendant's hairs were consistent with hairs found at the scene of the crime.

It is a basic principle of our criminal justice system that the prosecutor owes a criminal defendant a duty of fairness throughout the trial, including his closing argument. ( People v. McCollum (1992), 239 Ill. App.3d 593, 598, 607 N.E.2d 240.) This duty imposes on the prosecutor an ethical obligation to delete prejudicial and improper matters from closing argument.

See Lovelace, 251 Ill.App.3d at 624 (holding that the prosecutor's single comment regarding the police was distinguishable from the comments at issue in Threadgill, in which the prosecutor made "repeated attempts to arouse the jury's passions in a personalized way"); Williams, 228 Ill.App.3d at 1003 (distinguishing Threadgill where, inter alia, the prosecutor's comments at issue "were not repeated and lengthy arguments made throughout the State's closing argument"). ¶ 58 Ammons also relies on People v. McCollum, 239 Ill.App.3d 593 (1992), and People v.Slabaugh, 323 Ill.App.3d 723 (2001), both of which are inapposite. In McCollum, 239 Ill.App.3d at 600, the prosecutor stated that the defendant's investigator made far more money than the police officers and aligned himself with the local police by referring to" 'us poor old country boys in Hancock County.'"

Petitioner's petition for leave to appeal is a verbatim copy of his appellate brief. The cited cases for both are: People v. Blue, 189 Ill. 2d 99, 724 N.E.2d 920 (2000); People v. Smith, 141 Ill. 2d 40, 565 N.E.2d 900 (1990); People v. Emerson, 97 Ill. 2d 487, 455 N.E.2d 41 (1983); People v. Weinstein, 35 Ill. 2d 467, 220 N.E.2d 432 (1966); People v. Moore, 9 Ill. 2d 224, 137 N.E.2d 246 (1956); People v. Fluker, 318 Ill. App. 3d 193, 742 N.E.2d 799 (2000); People v. McCollum, 239 Ill. App. 3d 593, 607 N.E.2d 240 (1992); People v. Hood, 229 Ill. App. 3d 202, 593 N.E.2d 805 (1992); People v. Wilson, 199 Ill. App. 3d 792, 557 N.E.2d 571 (1990); People v. Ridley, 199 Ill. App. 3d 487, 557 N.E.2d 378 (1990); People v. Rogers, 172 Ill. App. 3d 471, 526 N.E.2d 655 (1988); People v. Ferguson, 172 Ill. App. 3d 1, 526 N.E.2d 525 (1988); People v. Sexton, 162 Ill. App. 3d 607, 515 N.E.2d 1359 (1987) and People v. Smith, 158 Ill. App. 3d 595, 511 N.E.2d 770 (1987). The third question is whether Petitioner "asserted the claim in terms so particular as to call to mind a specific constitutional right.

Peoples. McCollum, 239 Ill. App.3d 593, 599-600, 607 N.E.2d 240, 245-46 (3d Dist. 1993) (throughout trial, the prosecutor made several improper comments, including that the blood sample from the victim came from the victim's heart, noting the defense investigator's salary was higher than local police salaries and aligning himself with the local police, stating "'I guess us poor old country boys in Hancock County didn't do too bad.'"); People v. McCray, 60 Ill. App.3d 487, 489-90, 377 N.E.2d 46, 47-48 (1st Dist. 1978) (during cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the defendant if he had "'[a]ny occupation other than robbing people.'").

We do not necessarily disagree with the Illinois cases, but they involve different considerations because they involved non-victim witnesses who had no constitutionally protected right to refuse pretrial interviews. People v. McCollum, 239 Ill. App.3d 593, 180 Ill.Dec. 346, 349, 607 N.E.2d 240, 243 (1992) (investigating deputy sheriff refused defense pretrial interviews); People v. Allison, 236 Ill. App.3d 175, 177 Ill.Dec. 116, 120-21, 602 N.E.2d 1288, 1292-93 (1992) (state's eyewitness refused defense pretrial interview); People v. Atteberry, 213 Ill. App.3d 851, 157 Ill.Dec. 365, 366-67, 572 N.E.2d 434, 435-36 (1991) (state's eyewitness refused defense pretrial interview); Van Zile, 6 Ill.Dec. at 750-51, 363 N.E.2d at 432-33 (seven defense witnesses refused state's request for pretrial interviews). Because non-victim witnesses lack the constitutional right to refuse pretrial interviews, there is no occasion to apply a presumption that the refusal was based on the exercise of a constitutional right.

? The prosecution was entitled to cross-examine the ex-wife, who testified for the defense, to point out any bias she had in defendant's favor, see generally People v. Sommers, 200 P.3d 1089, 1096 (Colo.App.2008), and, to that end, it could arguably, at least, elicit evidence of her refusal to cooperate with the police until she received immunity for herself. See generally People v. McCollum, 239 Ill.App.3d 593, 180 Ill.Dec. 346, 607 N.E.2d 240, 243 (Ill.App.Ct.1992) (“Although a witness has a right to refuse to cooperate with or to be interviewed by the other side, that refusal can be shown in court to demonstrate bias, hostility, prejudice, or interest in the outcome. As such, the refusal to talk to the other side in advance of the trial is a proper matter to bring out on cross-examination.”).

Argument calculated solely to inflame the passions of the jury is improper. People v. McCollum, 239 Ill. App. 3d 593, 598 (1992). We caution the State that such comments can constitute reversible error.

Further, "a prosecutor is prohibited from making comments which are calculated solely to arouse the prejudice and inflame the passions of the jury." People v. McCollum, 239 Ill. App. 3d 593, 598 (1992). In fact, a "prosecutor has an ethical obligation to refrain from presenting improper and prejudicial argument."

6 Ill.Dec. at 747, 363 N.E.2d at 429. See also People v. McCollum, 239 Ill. App.3d 593, 180 Ill.Dec. 346, 607 N.E.2d 240 (1992) (state witness's right to refuse defense interview is relevant to demonstrate bias, hostility, prejudice, or interest in outcome); People v. Allison, 236 Ill. App.3d 175, 177 Ill.Dec. 116, 602 N.E.2d 1288 (1992) (same); People v. Atteberry, 213 Ill. App.3d 851, 157 Ill.Dec. 365, 572 N.E.2d 434 (1991) (same); Lacy v. State, 629 So.2d 591 (Miss. 1993) (same); Tolbert v. State, 511 So.2d 1368 (Miss. 1987) (same); State v. Hallman, 137 Ariz. 31, 668 P.2d 874 (1983) (inquiry into defense witness's refusal to honor State's subpoena is relevant to credibility).