A defendant's false exculpatory statement may be admissible to establish the defendant's consciousness of guilt. (See People v. Watson (1982), 103 Ill. App.3d 992, 431 N.E.2d 1350; People v. Puente (1981), 98 Ill. App.3d 936, 424 N.E.2d 775; People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153; People v. Wilson (1972), 8 Ill. App.3d 1075, 291 N.E.2d 270.) The present issue requires a determination of whether defendant's false statement was "exculpatory" and thus admissible to show his consciousness of guilt.
Thus, other evidence presented at trial showed the falsity of the defendant's out-of-court statements. A defendant's false exculpatory statement has independent probative value as evidence of consciousness of guilt and is admissible. ( People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153.) Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err when it admitted these false exculpatory statements into evidence.
( People v. King (1977), 66 Ill.2d 551, 363 N.E.2d 838; People v. Donald (1977), 56 Ill. App.3d 538, 371 N.E.2d 1101.) Assuming that the issue has not been waived, the State contends that the prosecution drew proper inferences from the facts and circumstances established by the evidence. (See People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153.) The State contends that it is proper for the prosecution to emphasize the evils of crime ( People v. Griggs (1977), 51 Ill. App.3d 224, 366 N.E.2d 581), that it is permissible to comment on the defendant's trial tactics without accusing defense of any misconduct ( People v. Johnson (1979), 73 Ill. App.3d 431, 392 N.E.2d 587), and that it is permissible to comment on defendant's use of a "smokescreen" defense when such an interpretation of the defense would be reasonable ( People v. Madden (1978), 57 Ill. App.3d 107, 372 N.E.2d 851; People v. Griggs). The State argues that even if the remarks were improper, they did not constitute a material factor in defendant's conviction and did not substantially prejudice defendant.
We find no such abuse in the instant case. ¶ 46 Generally, evidence is admissible if it is relevant and material to an issue. People v. Mitchell, 35 Ill. App. 3d 151, 163 (1971). Relevant evidence is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."
People v. Ray (1984), 126 Ill. App.3d 656, 664. Considering the context of the language used, its relation to the evidence, and the effect of the argument on the rights of defendant to a fair and impartial trial ( People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 164), we conclude that the jury could have reached a different verdict had the improper comments not been made. ( People v. Warmack (1980), 83 Ill.2d 112, 128-29.) Because Shenberger was the only occurrence witness, his testimony and credibility were crucial to the State's case.
In making this determination, reference must be made to the content of the language used, its relation to the evidence, and the effect of the argument on the rights of the accused to a fair and impartial trial. ( Witted, 79 Ill. App.3d at 165, 398 N.E.2d at 76; People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 164, 341 N.E.2d 153, 163.) As previously noted, every reasonable presumption must be indulged in that the trial judge has performed his duty and properly exercised the discretion vested in him.
Most notably, defendant claimed he was dating a woman in the area who often sent him to Mick's, but defendant never produced such a woman at trial to verify his story. While in general it is improper to accuse a defendant of lying, such an inference may be stated when the facts indicate he is being untruthful. ( People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 164, 341 N.E.2d 153, 163.) The comments made here concerning defendant's lack of credibility were within the bounds of propriety under such circumstances and did not constitute error in the context in which given. (See Albanese, 104 Ill.2d at 522, 473 N.E.2d at 1253; People v. Slaughter (1980), 84 Ill. App.3d 1103, 1113-14, 405 N.E.2d 1295, 1304.
In determining whether a prosecutor's comments or arguments constitute prejudicial error reference must sometimes be made to the content of the language used, its relation to the evidence and the effect of such argument on the rights of the accused to a fair and impartial trial. People v. Witted (1979), 79 Ill. App.3d 156, 165, 398 N.E.2d 68; People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153. • 8 In the first instance, the prosecutor during opening statements commented that the victim was a "good young man."
In applying this test, the entire argument must be considered and the complained-of comments placed in context. People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153. We have determined that in the instant case many of the complained-of remarks were in fact fair comment on matters properly in evidence and reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom.
A prosecutor's argument is proper comment if it is invited by defense counsel's remarks. People v. Medley (1983), 111 Ill. App.3d 444, 444 N.E.2d 269; People v. Olejniczak (1979), 73 Ill. App.3d 112, 390 N.E.2d 1339; People v. Mitchell (1975), 35 Ill. App.3d 151, 341 N.E.2d 153. • 4 Defendant also contends that the reading by prosecutor during closing argument of notations written by the victim in one of her books was improper.