to consider in considering whether there was a felony murder sequence of events here. All the evidence indicates that first there was this beating and the killing of Marion Smigiel. Then there was the taking of property.” The trial court subsequently sustained the prosecution’s objection to the above-quoted argument and directed the jury to disregard it. Was this an abuse of discretion? No. While an attorney is afforded wide latitude in making arguments, he may not misstate the law. People v. Williams, 161 Ill. 2d 1, 49 (1994); People v. Buckley, 282 Ill. App. 3d 81, 89 (1996). The “sequence of events” here, i.e., the fact that the armed robbery may not have been completed until after the death of the victim, is of no legal significance. See People v. Flores, 128 Ill. 2d 66, 97 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The defense was permitted to and did argue to
holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation when the defendant previously planned to commit the robbery armed himself with a shotgun and shot the victim during the robbery holding that a conviction for florida armed robbery is a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act holding that escape driver with no prior knowledge that robbery would be armed is aider and abettor of aimed bank robbery if he knowingly and willfully joins in the escape phase of an armed bank robbery knowing that an accomplice has a gun holding that it was immaterial that the armed robbery did not commence prior to the fatal gunshots holding that armed robbery suspect was entitled to bail hearing even though armed robbery was considered capital offense under mississippi law because maximum sentence was life imprisonment