Evidence of other crimes, threats, or bad acts is not admissible to show the defendant's character or propensity to commit crime or wrongful acts. People v. Williams, 274 Ill. App.3d 598, 607 (1995). However, such evidence is admissible if it is relevant for any other purpose. Williams, 274 Ill. App.3d 598, 607.

See Ill. R. Evid. 404(b) (evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” admissible for purposes other than to prove propensity to commit a crime, such as “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident”); Illinois v. Kimbrough, 485 N.E.2d 1292, 1296 (Ill.App.Ct. 1985) (evidence of other crimes or unlawful conduct is admissible if relevant to prove, e.g., defendant's state of mind, absence of an innocent frame of mind, identification of weapon used in crime, and opportunity); accord Illinois v. Tolbert, 753 N.E.2d 1193, 1197-98 (Ill.App.Ct. 2001); see also Illinois v. Williams, 653 N.E.2d 899, 906 (Ill.App.Ct. 1995) (evidence of threat relevant to show defendant's state of mind). Because Ryan's testimony about Griffin possessing a gun and threatening her with it was probative of Griffin's state of mind and that he had the means to commit the murder, Griffin cannot show admission of her testimony violated his due process rights to a fair trial.

Where a theory is unsupported by direct evidence, the State may comment on that lack of evidence. See People v. Williams, 274 Ill. App. 3d 598, 612 (1995); People v. Bell, 343 Ill. App. 3d 110, 117 (2003). However, "[t]o inform a jury that to believe the defense's witnesses the jury must find that each of the State's witnesses was lying is a misstatement of law that denies a defendant a fair trial."

"Where the defense presents a theory which is unsupported by direct evidence, the prosecutor is not precluded from commenting on that lack of evidence." People v. Williams, 274 Ill.App.3d 598, 612, 210 Ill.Dec. 704, 653 N.E.2d 899, 908 (1995). Therefore, the prosecutor was justified in mentioning Wright in rebuttal to the defense's closing argument.

A police officer may testify about conversations with others to show the steps in his investigation so long as this testimony is not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted by these other persons. People v. Williams, 274 Ill. App.3d 598, 604-05, 653 N.E.2d 899 (1995). In People v. Jones, 153 Ill.2d 155, 606 N.E.2d 1145 (1992), for example, the court held that the substance of police conversations with an out-of-court declarant was admissible to explain their actions.

In addition, a prosecutor may present his theory of the case to the jury so long as the theory is based upon evidence and reasonable inferences. People v. Williams, 274 Ill. App.3d 598, 611, 653 N.E.2d 899, 908 (1995). The prosecutor was entitled during closing argument to argue defendant robbed the store given the evidence that had been heard.