People v. Deramus

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of delivery of a controlled substance after selling heroin to undercover police officer. Although police officer's prior inconsistent statement was substantively admissible, exclusion of it was harmless, as it was cumulative of his live testimony. Prosecutor's comments in opening statement as to "seedy underbelly" of Chicago or "criminal drug dealing underworld" were not improper, as they were in anticipation of producing evidence that Defendant dealt drugs, and State did produce such evidence. References to Defendant as a "businessman" were proper, as supported by evidence. No prejudice in State remarking that police officer witnesses had come out of retirement to testify, as no express argument made that their retirement made them more credible. (FITZGERALD SMITH and HOWSE, concurring.)