Case Name: William DeFREITAS, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-10-22
Citations: 701 So. 2d 593
Docket Number: No. 95-3976
Parties: William DeFREITAS, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: GUNTHER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur specially with opinions.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 701
Pages: 593–606

Head Matter:
William DeFREITAS, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 95-3976.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Oct. 22, 1997.
Bruce S. Rogow and Beverly Pohl of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
BAKER, MOSES, Jr., Associate Judge.
Appellant, William DeFreitas, III, was found guilty by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm. Based upon the jury's verdict, he was sentenced to serve a mandatory minimum of three years in the state prison system followed by two years probation. We reverse and remand for new trial, choosing to discuss only two of the three points which we duly considered.
The instant case emanated from an altercation in which Appellant allegedly pointed a laser-sighted firearm at two individuals. At the trial below, a total of ten witnesses were called to testify, six were called by the state and four were called by Appellant. The facts were seriously disputed and vigorously contested. We have chosen to summarize the critical testimony on a witness by witness basis.
Appellant testified, inter aim, that on June 3, 1994, in response to a telephone call he received that evening from his former girlfriend, Karen Perrone, he went to the home of Natalie and Brett Fagan. Upon his arrival, he observed several individuals in the driveway area of the home. He stopped to see if Perrone was among them. When he did not see her, he drove to the end of the street, turned around and drove back past the home. As he slowly drove past the home, the individuals in the driveway area started toward his car in a threatening manner. As they approached his car, he retrieved his handgun and pointed it in then-general direction as they were actually approaching him. He explained that his actions were motivated by his own fear of these individuals as he felt threatened by their actions. He testified that he believed the situation justified at least the removal of his handgun from its holster. He denied threatening anyone with the gun or pointing it directly at anyone.
Appellant possessed a concealed weapon's permit and was lawfully in possession of the handgun on the night in question. He contended that he pointed the firearm in lawful self-defense without any specific intent whatsoever to do violence to anyone.
Karen Perrone, a 22-year-old receptionist and former girlfriend of Appellant, testified that she had indeed telephoned Appellant on the evening in question and desired to speak with him. She testified further that she observed six or seven individuals approaching Appellant's ear. She described their actions in the following manner: "egging him on, throwing their arms out, and saying come on." Additionally, she testified that one of the individuals, Brett Fagan, had a gun or rifle as he approached Appellant's car. She knew Appellant owned a handgun and had a permit to carry it. She also knew that the handgun was equipped with a laser sight. However, she testified that at the time of the altercation, she did not see any laser pointed at anyone nor did she see Appellant in possession of any handgun.
Appellant was not charged with the crime of stalking Perrone, nor was he charged with aggravated assault upon her. We have also noted that Brett Fagan, the individual Per-rone said was in possession of a firearm as he approached Appellant's car, did not testify at trial.
Natalie Fagan, a 24-year-old employee of AmTrust Bank, testified, inter alia, that she saw Appellant park his car and point his gun at Victoria Palozzola. She said she actually saw the red light or dot from the laser and that it was on the bodies of both Palozzola and Miller.
Leslie Tropepe, a graduate of the University of Miami, testified, inter alia, that Appellant followed Perrone to the Fagan's residence and Perrone "freaked out" when she saw him. She and others were yelling and screaming words to the effect that "he's here to get Karen." She testified that she saw a red light coming from Appellant's ear. She also said that Appellant stopped his car and pulled a gun and pointed it in her direction. She testified further that she and her friends were walking toward Appellant's car when Appellant pulled his gun and pointed it at them. Once they saw the gun, she said they turned away.
Victoria Palozzola, a 21-year-old young lady, testified, that on the night in question, she noticed that someone in a white car was following her and Perrone to the Fagan's home. She testified that Appellant pointed his firearm at her. She also said she saw the laser dot from the firearm on both her body and Miller's body. She testified further that she was afraid and called the police.
Herbert Miller, a motorcycle mechanic, testified, inter alia, that Appellant pointed a firearm at him. He also testified that at the time the firearm was pointed at him, he yelled Coconut Creek Police and held up his hands because he did not want to get shot and he thought Appellant would not shoot him if he believed that he was a law enforcement officer. He also testified the laser dot from the firearm at one point was on his chest and that he was afraid.
The two issues which we have chosen to discuss are: (1) whether or not the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for the crime of aggravated assault with a firearm as charged, and (2) whether or not the prosecuting attorney was guilty of misconduct of such a nature and character as to constitute fundamental error.
Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for aggravated assault with a firearm. More particularly, he contends that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the necessary and critical element of specific intent to do violence to the person of another. We disagree.
We have considered the record in its entirety and in so doing have concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; however, as to the issue of specific intent, the evidence was extremely close. Additionally, the evidence was extremely close as to whether or not the facts more closely fit the crime of improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon as opposed to aggravated assault. There is a vast difference between the two offenses, in that aggravated assault with a firearm is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of three years incarceration in the state prison system without the possibility of parole. There is no judicial discretion as to the mandatory minimum sentence. On the other hand, improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon is a first-degree misdemeanor and is punishable as such.
Appellant next contends, although he acknowledges that he did not make a proper legal objection nor a request for a curative instruction or a motion for mistrial, that he is nevertheless entitled to a reversal of his convictions and a new trial because the prosecuting attorney was guilty of numerous acts of prosecutorial misconduct of such a nature and character that the cumulative and collective effect rose to the level of fundamental error. We agree.
In Ryan v. State, 457 So.2d 1084, 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), we answered the same question presented in the instant appeal, the question being: 'When does prosecutorial misconduct amount to fundamental error and thus becomes an exception to the contemporaneous objection and motion for mistrial rule?" Our answer to this question has not changed and remains as follows: "When the prosecutorial argument taken as a whole is 'of such a character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence . a new trial should be granted, regardless of the lack of objection or exception.'" Id. at 1091 (quoting Peterson v. State, 376 So.2d 1230, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)). We defined fundamental error, which can be considered on appeal even without a proper objection or preservation in the lower court, as error which goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action. Ryan, 457 So.2d at 1091.
In Ryan, we reversed a criminal conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct which occurred exclusively during the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury. In so doing, we noted that defense counsel faded to object to many of the prosecutor's egregious comments. Nevertheless, we found the following conduct rose to the level of fundamental error and ordered a new trial:
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 1
1) Appeal to Bias, Passion, and Prejudice
In Ryan, the prosecuting attorney said during final argument:
But the rich get preferential treatment. She was not handcuffed on the way to jail, just as any one else would be treated. Her Palm Beach lawyer boyfriend comes up and wants the money back and they give that back, because she comes from money, and unconsciously people tend to be subservient. And we are asking you not to be subservient to money.
Hs H* H< H* # ❖
But we have shown that a rich person's daughter did do this. We have shown that a rich person's daughter didn't have much money herself. Maybe Daddy had to work for his money, way back when, but the children ought to not live up to their parent's potential. You've seen that before. Why should she, when Patty Ryan can go out and make hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to Carter Osleber, in this, why should she toil like everyone else?
* ^ Hi
Now, will the truth surface? Will you people do something that later in your lives you'll regret? Will you listen to the man from Tampa, and he can go back to Tampa, and we can all still live here in this community; and he says, "let her go. Let her walk out the door, because the State's case is not there." That this is all figments of someone's imagination. Are you going to do that?
*
There's been a lot of publicity recently about the lifestyle in Palm Beach and some of you may find it interesting, but I think it proves a point. When you come from a rich family — and it's hard to live up to what your parents have shown, or your parents have been able to achieve — and you can either try to repeat and do as well as your parents did, or you can try to cheat and get there through quick means.... It's life in the fast lane with cocaine. You've seen Time Magazine covers, I'm sure you've heard about it on T.V. It's an exciting drug. Movie stars take it. Movie stars get killed by taking it. It rules people's lives, but it's also exciting.

There was a trial not too long ago, that you may recall, that involved another Patty, another rich Patty. Another rich Patty whose parents wanted to buy a fancy attorney to deal with the case and to hope to float some ridiculous defense to the jury. Her name was Patricia Hurst, [sic] The jury didn't buy that one, did they?
*
Will this group tell the community they felt that the defendant had guilty knowledge of what was going to transpire? Or will they get caught up in words, like the Hinckley jury, and do something that later they regretted, because they felt they were confused.
Id. at 1087-88 (emphasis in original).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 2
2)Personal Attacks on Defense Counsel
*
I call upon Mr. Lazzara to be honest with you and to be open with you and to say, "Yes, these people were involved, but no, my client wasn't." But he's playing hide-the-ball.

So any argument by the attorney from Tampa that tries to say, "Well, she didn't know it was cocaine," again, as he said in his opening statement, that is not being honest with you, and it doesn't matter under the law.

In fact, if you recall, every item of evidence was objected to. Every item of evidence was objected to. If our case was so weak, if we had nothing, what was Mr. Lazzara afraid of?
Id. at 1089.
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 3
3) Commenting on Facts Not in Evidence
What type of real estate agent, again, is going to show people like Robert Bogue— you saw what Robert Bogue looked like, and Humberto; a couple of hooligans dressed in casual clothes — a million-dollar property and not suspect anything was wrong.
*
This is Jake Valley, who owned the plane. This is Jake Valley, that when Jay King and Detective Lockwood went out to interview him, he tricked them into saying, 'Well, I'll meet you at such and such an address," and when they go there that's a law office. And the attorney says, "He'll answer two questions." Now, isn't it a coincidence that Jake's number is inverted the same way that Pat's number is inverted.
*
You got Robert Bogue being out at the Diamond T. Ranch. The ranch that detective Murphy had said had been used repeatedly for drug drops.
Id. at 1089-90 (emphasis in original).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # J
4) Law Enforcement Officers Believe Appellant was Guilty.
Do you think that they would bring this to you and have the State spend its time and money if there wasn't evidence that they wanted you to consider? So, there's common sense.
Id. at 1090 (emphasis in original).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 5
5) Comments on Appellant's Failure to Testily
But we're asking you — she is telling you that she's not guilty of these crimes, and we're telling you, from the evidence, that she had participation.
You're here to determine whether she is guilty or whether she's not guilty, and innocent like she is claiming.
What would reasonable people say about that? They'd say, "That's not true. She's lying."
Id. (emphasis in original).
In Tuff v. State, 509 So.2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), we reversed a criminal conviction for manslaughter because of prosecutorial misconduct which occurred exclusively during the prosecutor's final argument to the jury. In so doing, we said the following: "the test to be used, in the absence of objection to alleged prosecutorial misconduct, is whether the prosecutor's comments are fundamentally tainted." Id. at 956. We found the following misconduct rose to the level of fundamental error requiring a new trial:
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 1
Appellant contends during closing argument the prosecutor made several remarks that were prejudicial. Several of these remarks describe ordinary negligence, rather than culpable negligence, and suggest, by implication, this is the test in the present case. The prosecutor also indicated the judge would speak similarly. Hence, says appellant, the prosecutor conveyed that if Mrs. Tuff did not use reasonable care, she was guilty.
Id. at 955 (emphasis added).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 2
Next, Mrs. Tuff urges that the prosecutor's Golden Rule argument, his reference to a parent's responsibility to keep his or her children safe, and his mention of the number of children each juror had (who had children), mentioning each juror by name, was inflammatory. The prosecutor also allegedly indicated Mrs. Tuff was a menace to the jurors' children.
Id. (emphasis added).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # S
Next, appellant argues that the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence by saying, "If the thing is not cocked, and I ask you if it was cocked, what was it doing cocked?"
Id. (emphasis added).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 4
Finally, appellant attacks the prosecutor's statement that Mrs. Tuff was told of her right to remain silent and her right to the presence of a lawyer — appointed, if necessary — because the officers know defense lawyers are sharp enough to claim the client was not given a lawyer. This, she urges, is a distortion and an unfair attack on defense counsel.
Id. (emphasis added).
In Knight v. State, 672 So.2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), we reversed another criminal conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct which occurred exclusively during the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury. In Knight, Judge Dell, speaking for this court, stated:
We recognize that appellant failed to object to several of the prosecutor's improper comments and only made one objection at the end of the state's closing. However, this court has held that if the improper comments rise to the level of fundamental error, then multiple objections are not necessary . We hold that the totality of the prosecutor's improper comments reach to the very heart of the ease and rise to the level of fundamental error obviating the need for multiple or contemporaneous objections.
Id. at 591.
We found the following conduct rose to the level of fundamental error and ordered a new trial:
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 1
During closing argument, the prosecutor commented on Bacon's counsel's objection to Ms. Allison's testimony:
Now, I don't know why Halpern didn't want ID technician Allison to tell you about the fingerprint results. Maybe he will tell you, I don't know. I don't have a clue.
Maybe he is saving that and has something up his sleeve along with the perjured testimony and planted evidence.
I wanted to find out what the answer was, but you heard him object so he can explain it to you.
Id, at 590.
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 2
The prosecutor also made at least five references to one Vetus McCray stating that he was a "criminal" and would have lied to the jury if called to testify. Vetus McCray had been seen with appellant and the eodefendants on the day of the incident, but he was not charged or called as a witness in the ease.
Id. at 590-91.
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 3
The prosecutor further argued that a not guilty verdict meant the detectives were criminals and perjurers and effectively sought to poll the jurors on this point when he stated:
Unless you believe [Detective Cami-lo's] a perjurer, he is a criminal and likes to point the finger at innocent people, if you believe that, let me know. I will sit down now.
Id. at 591.
In Shorter v. State, 532 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a second-degree murder conviction because of prosecutorial misconduct which occurred during the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury and during his cross-examination of the defendant. We acknowledge that Shorter involved a harmless error analysis which is not the proper test to be applied in the instant case. We cite to Shorter because it provides a further detañed description of condemnable prosecutorial misconduct. In this sense, it is instructive and helpful.
In Shorter, the Third District Court of Appeal stated the following regarding the misconduct of the prosecutor:
We conclude that the above-stated prose-cutorial misconduct, when considered in totality, deprived the defendant of a fair trial in this otherwise close case on whether the defendant shot deceased with criminal intent or in self-defense . We cannot agree that this prosecutorial misconduct was harmless under the circumstances of this case; on the contrary, we conclude that the said conduct may very well have tipped the scales in favor of the state.
Id. at 1111.
The precise misconduct in Shorter was as follows:
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 1
First, we conclude that the prosecuting attorney was gmlty of improper conduct in his suggestion made during final argument to the jury that the defendant's sister had previously attacked the homicide victim with a knife; there was utterly no evidence adduced below to support this suggestion.
Id.
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 2
Second, we conclude that the prosecuting attorney was also guüty of improper conduct by suggesting on cross examination of the defendant that the defendant had put three police officers in the hospital when the defendant was arrested in this case. Assuming there was some evidence to support this suggestion, we conclude such evidence would have been inadmissible in evidence as its prejudicial impact far outweighed whatever limited relevance it might have as to defendant's alleged consciousness of grnlt. Although the trial court correctly sustained the defendant's objection to the prosecuting attorney's improper question, its subsequent cautionary instruction failed to undo the damage done by this time bomb of a question.
Lastly, we conclude that the above-stated prosecutorial misconduct, when consid ered in totality, deprived the defendant of a fair trial in this otherwise close case on whether the defendant shot the deceased with criminal intent or in self-defense;
Id. (citations omitted).
Measuring the prosecuting attorney's conduct in the instant case by the aforementioned well-settled standard, we are persuaded that Appellant has been denied one of his most precious constitutional rights, the right to a fair criminal trial by the cumulative effect of one prosecutorial impropriety after another. Furthermore, we are equally persuaded that the cumulative effect of the numerous acts of prosecutorial misconduct herein were so prejudicial as to vitiate Appellant's entire trial. In addition, we are likewise persuaded beyond question that the cumulative effect of the numerous acts of misconduct were of such a character that neither rebuke nor retraction could have or would have destroyed their sinister influence. The prosecutorial misconduct, taken in its entirety and viewed in its proper context, is of such prejudicial magnitude that it enjoys no safe harbor anywhere in the criminal jurisprudence of this state. Accordingly, we find fundamental error.
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT # 1
First, we conclude that the prosecuting attorney was guilty of misconduct by suggesting or inferring on cross-examination of Appellant that Appellant was a person with a temper which perhaps was so bad that it led to him hitting his own sister in the head with a baseball bat. We conclude further that this evidence was inadmissible for reasons too numerous to set forth herein. Suffice it to say that the evidence was of little or no probative value and was so inflammatory that any probative value it might possibly have had was clearly outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
We have further concluded that the dignity of the office of prosecuting attorney demanded, at the very least, a request for a side bar conference or a proffer outside the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of this highly inflammatory evidence. We note that although the prosecutor was well aware of the questionable admissibility of this evidence, he did not request a side bar or a proffer, thus depriving the trial court of the opportunity to determine the admissibility of this evidence before it was imparted to the jury. Had a side bar or proffer been requested and thereafter the trial court allowed this evidence, there would have been no sustainable basis for this particular aspect of Appellant's prosecutorial misconduct claim.
We again find it necessary to remind the prosecutor of the following often cited well-settled principle: the prosecutor's duty is not to obtain convictions but to seek justice, and he or she must exercise that responsibility with the circumspection and dignity the occasion calls for. The prosecutor's ease must rest on evidence, not innuendo. If the prosecutor's case is a sound one, then the evidence should be enough. If it is not sound, the prosecutor has a duty to refrain from innuendo to give the case a false appearance of strength. The innuendo, in the case at bar, to the effect that Appellant has a terrible temper which perhaps may have led to him hitting his sister in the head with a baseball bat, had no place in the Appellant's criminal trial. Standing alone, it may not have constituted fundamental error; however, its contribution to the cumulative effect of the entire misconduct in this case simply is more than the constitutional right to a fair criminal trial can bear.
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT #2
Second, we conclude that the prosecuting attorney was guilty of improper conduct during his final argument by impermis-sibly asking the jurors to place themselves in the position of the victims and asking them to think how they would feel if the crime happened to them. We recognize that often times the line between the inflammatory and the dramatics is not always clear or bright. Vigorous and diligent advocacy on the part of the state is not only commendable, but is necessary to make our system of jurisprudence work. However, as far as golden rule arguments are concerned, the lines are clear and bright, simply put they are improper. In short, they enjoy no safe harbor in the trial of a criminal case. In Miku v. Olmen, 193 So.2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), we said that golden rule arguments were per se prejudicial and required a new trial. Only recently have we receded from this principle. See Cleveland Clinic Florida v. Wilson, 685 So.2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
In the instant case, the prosecutor imper-missibly placed before the jury evidence that Appellant had a temper and hit his sister in the head with a baseball bat. Unfortunately, he compounded this problem by asking the jury to just imagine how terrifying it would be if the gun in question was pointed at their [the jurors] chest by this same person.
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT #3
Third, we conclude that the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct during his final argument by impermissibly making a comparison between Appellant's case and trial and the "O.J. Simpson" ease. This reference, coupled with the reference to Appellant as a stalker, possessive ex-boyfriend who disapproved of his ex-girlfriend's friends, simply crossed the line of proper vigorous and diligent advocacy and violated the rule against inflammatory argument. It represents an appeal to passions and bias; moreover, it is eondemnable for the same reasons we condemned the Patty Hearst comparison in Ryan.
In the instant case, the prosecutor's impermissible reference to the O.J. Simpson, standing alone, may not have been sufficient to reach the very heart of Appellant's criminal trial and may not have risen to the level of fundament error; however, its contribution to the cumulative effect of the totality of the misconduct reached far beyond that which the constitutional right to a fair criminal trial allows.
We have considered Appellant's remaining point and found it to be without merit. However, because we are convinced beyond any real question that the prosecutor's conduct, viewed in its entirety, constituted prosecuto-rial misconduct of such extreme nature and character that it utterly destroyed Appellant's most precious right under our criminal justice system, the constitutional right to a fair criminal trial, we reverse, the conviction and sentence below and remand this cause for a new trial. In so doing, we continue to adhere to the proposition adopted by this court that we "perceive very few instances where remarks or conduct by an attorney are of such sinister influence as to constitute reversible error absent objection." Norman v. Gloria Farms, Inc., 668 So.2d 1016, 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Certainly, the better practice is to bring the matter promptly to the attention of the trial judge. Furthermore, defense counsel has the duty to remain alert to such things in fulfilling his responsibility to see that his client receives a fair trial. Except in rare instances where a grievous injustice might result, this court is not inclined to excuse counsel for his failure in this regard. We think this case falls within the exception.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur specially with opinions.
. Q. Was there a reason you just didn't speed off?
A. Well, I was looking for Karen, you know. I mean, her car. Also, I wanted to see her.
Q. She had called you?
A. Right.
(T 178) (emphasis added)
Q. On June 3rd, how did you happen to go to the home of the Fagan's
A. I wanted to talk to Karen. We had talked previously and—
(T 174). (emphasis added)
. See T 176, line 8-25; T 177, line 1-14
. Q. What was the purpose of your call?
A. Well, I had' — I didn't — I wasn't sure if it was him or not, but I had an idea. So I called him because / wanted to talk to him.
Q. Did you want him to come to that house? A. Yes.
Q. Did he know where that house was?
A. Yes, he know where it was.
Q. And were you prepared to talk to him on that evening?
A. I thought I was. But when I first called him -
Q. You never did get back to the Fagan house, or at least within that period of time?
A. No. It was after I called him, I went out to dinner. And me and Natalie and
(T 146, lines 20-25; T 147, lines 1-9) (emphasis added)
Q. Now, this house that Bill showed up at, this was his house was it?
A. Bill's house, no sir.
Q. Nobody invited him there; correct? Did you invite him there that evening?
A. No.
Q. Do you know of anybody that invited him that evening?
A. No. Well, I did call him.
Q. Okay. Prior to you calling him, did anybody invite him to the house that evening? A. No.
(T 149, lines 1-11) (emphasis added)
Q. Do you know whether Karen called Billy from you home that night?
A. Yes, I believe she did.
Q. Do you know — Do you know why she called Billy?
A. I don't know.
Q. Not what she said, but do you know why? A. I don't know.
Q. She used your telephone?
A. Yes, sir.
(T 31, lines 6-15)
. Q. And do you know what they did when they got outside, what you observed?
A. They were approaching the car.
Q. Do you know how close they got to the car?
A. Yes. They were, you know, egging him on. Throwing their arms out like, you know, come on, you know.
Q. Was Brett Fagan there that night?
A. Yes he was.
Q. Did Brett Fagan have anything with him by way of a protective device?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he have?
A. Some type of a gun or rifle. I mean, it was a rifle. I don't know what kind.
(T 142, lines 3-23)
. Q. And you stated that Victoria didn't like you very much.
A. Not in any way.
Q. Was it — Victoria didn't like you because you were physically abusive to her?
A. I have never been physically abusive.
Q. You have never been physically abusive to anybody?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever hit your sister in the head with a baseball bat?
A. That's when we were little kids. I swinging the bat and stopped at her, not actually hitting her. But there was no way I would hit my sister on purpose.
Mr. Beamer [Defense Counsel]: I'm going to object
A. I don't appreciate that.
Mr. Beamer: Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as well.
A. I don't appreciate that at all.
THE COURT: Sir. When you answer the questions you'll not make side comments.
Q. Do you have a temper?
A. No, Sir.
. Q. Has Billy ever demonstrated any kind of violent nature?
THE PROSECUTOR: I'm going to object to that question. It's strictly prohibited by the statute rules.
THE COURT: Sustained.
. It's a gun. It's a real gun. It's a gun with a laser on it. Just imagine how terrifying this laser would be if it was on your chest?
. But just ponder this, then I'm going to sit down. If there were four people that saw O.J. hit and murder those people were at that time Leslie, Victoria and Herbie, and they saw it, then O.J. ran away, got in his Bronco and starts leaving, and then Officer Vemetti stopped O.J. and found that weapon, that murder weapon in that vehicle, is there anybody in this country that wouldn't convict O.J.? Thai's what we have here.

So was he [Appellant] some nonviolent person who works with mentally retarded children and was attacked by Herbie and the other girls that evening? Or was he this angry ex-boyfriend of Karen Perrone who was stalking her in the white car and disapproved of her friends. That's for you to decide.
(Emphasis added)