In People v. Payne (1983) 98 Ill.2d 45, after arresting the defendants, police officers searched their apartment without a warrant. They found two handguns inside a refrigerator. The trial court suppressed the weapons. (Id., 456 N.E.2d at pp. 45-46.) On defendant's cross-examination of one of the arresting officers, however, counsel asked if the defendants and their apartment were searched. The officer said they were, and counsel asked no further questions. The trial court determined this cross-examination " 'opened the door' " to admitting one of the suppressed weapons to rebut the false impression created by the cross-examination that nothing was recovered from the apartment. (Payne, supra, 456 N.E.2d at p. 46.) The Illinois Supreme Court presciently applied the balancing test later established by James, and its reasoning applies equally here: "The problem in this case arose not from false statements, made by defendants while testifying, but rather from cross-examination and potential argument by the defense which falsely implied the absence of physical evidence connecting defendants with the crimes. ... We do not believe that the defendants could affirmatively misrepresent or falsely imply that the police found no physical evidence connected with the robbery during their search. " 'There is no gainsaying that arriving at the truth is a fundamental goal of our legal system' (United States v. Havens (1980), 446 U.S. 620, 626 64 L.Ed.2d 559, 565, 100 S.Ct. 1912), and we consider that allowing the defense or prosecution to misrepresent to the jury the actual facts of the case is neither consistent with the proper functioning and continued integrity of the judicial system nor with the policies of the exclusionary rules." (Payne, supra, 456 N.E.2d at pp. 46-47.)