did attempt to make an offer of proof or other motion to enable the trial court to decide the appropriate scope of his testimony. See Whitehead, 116 Ill. 2d at 443. Defendant also argued trial counsel’s claimed failure to object to improper comments by the prosecution. According to defendant, trial counsel did not object when the prosecution impermissibly highlighted his failure to testify, made an issue of trial counsel’s sincerity, misled the jury by suggesting that defendant’s theories of intoxication and reasonable doubt were sufficient in law only if the jury believed both defenses, and referred to him as a “pervert.” These alleged errors were raised on direct appeal as instances of prosecutorial misconduct which denied defendant a fair trial. See Whitehead, 116 Ill. 2d at 445-47 (<HOLDING>). We cannot say, however, even assuming defense
holding errors based on the constitutional rights to confrontation and due process may be waived by failure to object at trial holding defendants failure to object timely waives its right to challenge expert report holding failure to object in timely fashion at trial results in waiver of issue for appeal holding claimed errors waived for failure to timely object holding that claimed errors of law are subject to plenary review