exhibits; a statement of defendant, undisclosed in discovery, was elicited by the State; and exclusion of testimony concerning Gas Company records was in error as defendant was prevented from developing a defense. A point raised but not argued or supported by citation to relevant authority fails to satisfy the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) and is therefore waived. (Felella, 131 Ill. 2d at 540; Brown v. Tenney (1988), 125 Ill. 2d 348.) Accordingly, we deem these matters waived, as defendant cites to neither authority, nor in some instances, relevant portions of the record. As previously discussed, we find no substantial trial error and are unwilling to reverse even though the evidence against defendant is circumstantial. See People v. Williams (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 522 (<HOLDING>). V Double Jury Procedure Defendant argues that
holding that prosecutorial error does not warrant reversal unless substantial prejudice results holding that retrial did not violate the double jeopardy clause where reversal based on trial error distinguishing reversal for insufficient evidence holding circumstantial evidence has equivalent standing to direct evidence in criminal prosecution holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent holding reversal unwarranted in circumstantial evidence case absent substantial trial error