JUSTICE KUEHN delivered the opinion of the court:

Ellen Drake was a petite woman who lived in a small home located on Pleasant Hill Road in Carbondale,Illinois. She and her pet German shepherd shared a pleasant existence together. However, there was nothing pleasantin how that life came to an end. On January 16, 1998, Ellen Drake perished in her home, succumbing to nine massivestab wounds sustained by her diminutive chest. In all, she suffered 14 wounds. A lacerated lung and heart bled untilher chest cavity filled. Without the blood flow needed to sustain life, Ellen died.

It appeared that Ellen could offer little if any resistance to her savage assailant, an attacker who had no stomachfor a match with the home's other inhabitant. Ellen's dog was found locked inside the bathroom.

On January 18, 1998, the defendant, Gary Dean Lee, was arrested in Memphis, Tennessee, driving Ellen'sbrand-new car. A bloody-bladed butcher knife was found inside the car just to the left of where the defendant wassitting. The defendant had blood on his clothing. The blood found on the knife and on the clothing proved to beconsistent with the type of blood that Ellen had lost.

The defendant volunteered a statement, which was taped. He readily admitted that he broke into Ellen's home,ravaged her belongings, and took what he pleased. However, Ellen's death mystified him. He denied any role inproducing it. His denial could not account for how Ellen's blood came to rest upon his clothing.

The defendant left his fingerprints in places consistent with his admissions. They were found near Ellen'semptied purse and on the cabinet that once housed her stereo equipment. The fingerprints were also found in closeproximity to blood splatter found in certain areas of the home.

The defendant had pilfered numerous items, including a microwave oven, two television sets, a computer, astereo, a boom box, a CD player, and a cellular phone. There were several witnesses who saw him with these items onthe night of the murder. In fact, the defendant spent most of that evening trying to find buyers for sundry things thatonce entertained and enhanced life's enjoyment on Pleasant Hill Road. It was obvious from his activity that he madeseveral trips back to the residence to obtain further loot.

The main buyer of these items was a cocaine merchant. At the trial, he revealed the reason behind thedefendant's enterprising endeavors that night. The defendant was binging on cocaine. For the most part, Ellen's propertywas bartered, piece by piece, for pieces of crack cocaine. Her life's possessions maintained the defendant's drug-inducedeuphoria into the late evening hours. The fruit of the defendant's felonious undertaking went up in smoke before thenight's end.

The defendant stood trial for capital murder, residential burglary, robbery, and theft over $10,000. The juryfound him guilty. After a death penalty sentencing hearing, the jury spared the defendant's life. The determination ofthe appropriate punishment passed to the trial judge.

The trial judge determined that the killing of Ellen Drake was particularly brutal and heinous indicative ofwanton cruelty. Based upon this finding, he sentenced the defendant to a life of imprisonment. In addition, hesentenced the defendant to seven-year prison terms for robbery and theft but allowed him to serve those sentences atthe same time that he fulfilled his life sentence. The trial judge also determined that after the defendant served his lifesentence, he would need to serve an additional 15 years of imprisonment for the residential burglary. By imposing a15-year consecutive prison sentence for the residential burglary, the trial judge assured that the defendant could neithersatisfy the punishment imposed nor expiate his misdeeds, at least not in this lifetime.

On appeal, the defendant complains that several errors occurred during the proceedings to verdict, deprivinghim of a fair trial. He also challenges the constitutional validity of his sentences.

The defendant is an African-American. Of the 71 prospective jurors drawn to determine the defendant's fate,only one shared this status. The State exercised a peremptory challenge to remove that single African-American jurorfrom the jury panel. The defendant objected and asserted that her removal was racially motivated. Before the trial judgecould find the presence or absence of a prima facie case of discriminatory intent, the prosecutor disavowed racialmotivation and tendered several race-neutral reasons that shaped his decision to exercise one of his peremptorychallenges. The trial judge ruled that the challenge would stand and excused the prospective juror. He found that thechallenge had not been used to systematically exclude a given race from the jury. The trial judge added that if he had"any inclination" that the prospective juror was being excluded because of race, he would not have removed her fromthe panel.

On appeal, the defendant maintains that the exclusion of the sole African-American jury panel memberdeprived him of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the United States and Illinois Constitutions (U.S.Const., amend. XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,