• 5 The admission of photographs at trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be interfered with unless there has been an abuse thereof to the prejudice of the accused. ( People v. Puckett (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 206, 285 N.E.2d 258.) A photograph may properly be admitted notwithstanding the fact that it shows a surgical incision which assertedly renders it inflammatory. ( People v. Smith (1974), 20 Ill. App.3d 756, 314 N.E.2d 543.) In addition, photographs of a homicide victim's body introduced to show cause of death and identity of the victim are properly admitted, even though there is oral testimony on the same subject or defendant offers to stipulate as to the matters shown by the photographs.

However, even where a defendant stipulates to the identity of the deceased and the cause of death, the State has the right to prove each and every element of the crime. People v. Speck (1968), 41 Ill.2d 177, 242 N.E.2d 208, rev'd on other grounds, Speck v. Illinois (1971), 403 U.S. 946, 29 L.Ed.2d 855, 91 S.Ct. 2279; People v. Puckett (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 206, 285 N.E.2d 258; see also People v. Kuntz (1977), 52 Ill. App.3d 804, 368 N.E.2d 114. The judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County is therefore affirmed.

In the Jenko case the court held that there was no error in admitting into evidence certain photographs taken of the victim's body at the hospital and showing the various wounds inflicted upon her. • 3 The State has a right to prove each and every element of the crime, even though the defendant stipulates to the identity of the deceased and the cause of death. ( People v. Speck (1968), 41 Ill.2d 177, 242 N.E.2d 208, rev'd on other grounds (1971), 403 U.S. 946, 29 L.Ed.2d 855, 91 S.Ct. 2279; People v. Puckett (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 206, 285 N.E.2d 258.) No such stipulations were even offered here. While defendant raised the defense of insanity, the defendant's arguments also attempted to cast doubt with regard to whether the defendant performed the acts which resulted in the death of Guy Aubuchon. Further, the photographs helped to clarify the testimony of the medical witnesses as to the wounds inflicted upon Guy and the cause of death.

However, that instruction does not need to be a separate instruction. People v. Puckett (1st Dist. 1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 206, 210, 285 N.E.2d 258, involved an identical argument. This court noted the IPI instruction regarding the elements of murder adequately covered Puckett's defense of accident.

( People v. Reed (1974), 23 Ill. App.3d 686, 320 N.E.2d 249.) Yet, merely because the evidence is circumstantial, the trier of fact is not required to search out potential explanations of the evidence which are compatible with innocence and elevate them to the status of reasonable doubt. ( People v. Arndt (1972), 50 Ill.2d 390, 280 N.E.2d 230; People v. Puckett (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 206, 285 N.E.2d 258.) In the instant case, we believe that the evidence established defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

( People v. Kelley (1963), 29 Ill.2d 53, 59, 193 N.E.2d 21.) While it may be possible that someone else shot Mrs. Billingslea, the trier of fact is not required to search out a series of potential explanations compatible with innocence and elevate them to the status of reasonable doubt. People v. Puckett (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 206, 209, 285 N.E.2d 258; People v. Stoafer (1969), 112 Ill. App.2d 198, 203, 251 N.E.2d 108. • 2 The fact that the evidence is in conflict is not, in itself, sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt.

It is further clear to us that the trial court, as the trier of fact, was not required to search out a series of potential explanations compatible with innocence and elevate them to the stature of a reasonable doubt. People v. Puckett (1st Dist. 1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 206, 209, 285 N.E.2d 258. II.

( People v. Carbona.) Several recent decisions since Lefler establish that where the jury has been adequately instructed as to the issues and definitions of the offense charged, no error results from the refusal to give a tendered instruction on accident or misadventure. (See People v. Routt (1968), 100 Ill. App.2d 388, 241 N.E.2d 206; People v. Helms (1971), 133 Ill. App.2d 727, 272 N.E.2d 228; and People v. Puckett (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 206, 285 N.E.2d 258.) In People v. Carlton (1975), 26 Ill. App.3d 995, 999, 326 N.E.2d 100, this court stated: "An act that is committed accidentally does not involve a mental state cognizable to the criminal offenses of murder and involuntary manslaughter."

Since all of the appropriate instructions from the Illinois Pattern Instructions for Criminal Cases were given, we see no need to instruct the jury that the State must prove that death did not occur by accident or misadventure. People v. Witherspoon, 55 Ill.2d 18, 302 N.E.2d 3; People v. Puckett, 6 Ill. App.3d 206, 285 N.E.2d 258. For these reasons, judgment is affirmed.

The jurors saw and heard the witnesses and had occasion to weigh such testimony in the light of the testimony of events preceding the death, the physical evidence suggesting a struggle in the two rooms of the house, together with the statements made by defendant in the nature of admissions. An inculpatory admission may be sufficient to sustain a conviction. ( People v. Puckett, 6 Ill. App.3d 206, 285 N.E.2d 258.) The record discloses issues of fact for the jury, and we are not persuaded that there was a failure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.