After analyzing the specific facts and circumstances present in this case, we believe that the State fully explained the steps taken to complete DNA testing within the 120-day term. The State's attempts to complete the testing within 120 days, while not as expedient as, perhaps, they might have been, were reasonable, and adequately explained why there was an unavoidable delay. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the motion. Thus, the evidence could only prejudice the jury. On the other hand, the State theorizes that the DNA evidence makes defendant's testimony less credible because it supports Aylward's version of the incident.
Evidence is material when it is probative of a question before the trier of fact.
254 Ill. App. Since this evidence tends to corroborate Aylward's version of the course of events, it was not an abuse of discretion to grant the State's motion for a continuance. Defendant also argues that since he did not contest the July 10 sexual encounter at trial, the test results were not material. At the time of the hearing on the motion, defendant had not yet conceded sexual intercourse took place on July 10. We cannot determine if the trial court erred because defendant's argument was not and could not have been an issue before the court at that time.