Lugo v. State (845 So. 2d 74, 2003)

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Lugo (Lugo) appeals his convictions of first-degree murder and his sentences of death. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm both the convictions and the sentences of death. We also affirm Lugo’s other convictions and sentences.

FACTS

Lugo’s case involves an intricate set of facts, which at times involved many persons. Most of the criminal charges in this case are related to the abduction, extortion, and attempted murder of Marcelo (Marc) Schiller, or to the abduction, attempted extortion, and murders of Frank Griga and Krisztina Furton.

Abduction, Extortion, and Attempted Murder of Marc Schiller

In the early 1990s, Marc Schiller was a wealthy Miami businessman who owned an accounting firm, Dadima Corporation. His business interests expanded into providing services that were reimbursed by Medicare. Schiller hired Jorge Delgado to assist him with his business pursuits, and the two became close friends. Delgado often visited Schiller’s home for both business and social reasons. Eventually, Schiller sold the Medicare-related portion of his business to Delgado, which retained the name “Dadima Corporation” after the sale. Schiller selected a new name of “D.J. & Associates” for his accounting business. For a period of time after he sold the Medicare portion to Delgado, Schiller performed consulting work for Delgado and Dadima Corporation.

Delgado exercised at Sun Gym in the Miami area, where Lugo was employed. The two became good friends, and at times Lugo would accompany Delgado on visits to Schiller’s home. Delgado also came to know Lugo’s codefendants, Noel Doorbal and John Mese. Schiller believed Lugo to be an unsavory character, and expressed his concern to Delgado.

By 1994, a rift had developed between Schiller and Delgado. Schiller had been questioning Delgado’s accounting practices with regard to Dadima Corporation, and was also concerned with transactions involving some bank accounts. During a meeting with a banker at a local restaurant, the conflict expanded as Delgado refused to respond to questions and became angry with Schiller. Thereafter, Schiller advised Delgado that he was severing all business ties and, on the advice of Lugo, Delgado hired John Mese to be his replacement accountant.

In the September-October 1994 time frame, Lugo advised Delgado of his belief that Schiller had been cheating Delgado with regard to the billing operations that Schiller had been performing for Delgado and the Medicare business. Delgado testified that Lugo showed him documentation which purported to prove that Schiller had been cheating Delgado. Lugo asserted to Delgado that Schiller had also been cheating Lugo. Schiller flatly denied accusations of cheating Delgado in the billing operation when Delgado confronted Schiller with the claim.

Lugo and his cohorts subsequently generated a plot to kidnap Schiller, with the goal of forcing him to sign over assets equivalent in value to that which Delgado and Lugo believed to be owed to them. Delgado asked Lugo to do whatever he could to recover the value Schiller owed to both of them, but Delgado expressed that he did not want to be involved in any of the scheming. However, Delgado nevertheless became deeply involved in a plan to kidnap Schiller. He informed Lugo, Door-bal, and two men recruited by Lugo from Sun Gym (Stevenson Pierre and Carl Weekes) of details concerning Schiller’s home, family, cars, and personal habits. The group agreed to secretly observe Schiller to learn his daily routine to implement the plan. Testimony at trial established that Lugo was the unquestioned mastermind of the plan to abduct and extort money from Schiller. Stevenson Pierre observed Lugo’s role to be that of a general in a military operation. The group eventually purchased or otherwise procured handcuffs, walkie-talkies, and a stun gun (among other items) to aid in the abduction plan.

After several failed attempts at locating and capturing Schiller, on November 15, 1994, the group finally succeeded in abducting him from the parking lot of the delicatessen restaurant he owned in the Miami area. Doorbal and Weekes grabbed Schiller, and Weekes subdued Schiller, shocking him with a stun gun. Another cohort, Sanchez, assisted Doorbal and Weekes in forcing Schiller into a waiting' van. Inside the van, Schiller was handcuffed and duct tape was placed over his eyes. A gun was placed at Schiller’s head, and his wallet and jewelry removed as the van proceeded to a warehouse that Delgado had rented. He also received additional shocks with the stun gun and he was kicked. Lugo arrived at the warehouse shortly after Doorbal and the others arrived with Schiller.

Schiller’s captors demanded a list of his assets which Schiller initially refused to provide. The refusal resulted in his being slapped, shocked with the stun gun, and beaten with a firearm. Weekes questioned Schiller about his assets, based on information provided by Lugo and Delgado. Schiller testified that after he again refused to provide the requested information, he was told that he was going to engage in a game of Russian Roulette. A gun was placed to his head, the cylinder was turned, and the trigger was pulled twice but no bullets fired. Schiller’s captors proceeded to read a highly accurate list of his assets to him, demanding that he corroborate what they already knew and that he add to the list assets of which they were not aware. The captors also apprised Schiller that they knew the alarm code for entry into his home. Because his assailants possessed such detailed knowledge of his assets and his home, Schiller surmised that Delgado must have been involved in the plot. Schiller also came to recognize Lugo’s voice, despite Lugo’s efforts to disguise the identity. Schiller testified that Lugo’s speech often had a very recognizable lisp-like trait.

The captors further threatened that if Schiller did not cooperate, his wife and children would also be abducted and his wife raped in his presence. Schiller was eventually compelled to agree to cooperate but only if his wife and children were allowed to leave the country unharmed. In the ensuing days, Schiller began signing over his assets, including a quitclaim deed for his home, various documents granting access to his checking, savings, and IRA accounts, and authorization for changing the beneficiary of his million-dollar insurance policies.

During Schiller’s captivity, Lugo and Doorbal entered Schiller’s home and removed many furnishings and other items. Lugo, Delgado, and Weekes also began charging thousands of dollars to Schiller’s credit cards. Money in Schiller’s safe in his home was divided among Doorbal, Weekes, and Pierre. Three weeks into Schiller’s captivity, Doorbal and Delgado convinced Lugo that Schiller must be killed, because he had likely surmised the identities of some, if not all, of his captors. A plan was then developed to kill Schiller but to give the appearance that Schiller’s death resulted from the operation of his automobile under the influence of alcohol.

In the fourth week, Schiller was forced to consume large amounts of alcohol to make him intoxicated. Lugo drove Schiller’s Toyota 4-Runner into a utility pole on a Miami-area street to create the impression that Schiller had been involved in an accident resulting from driving while intoxicated. Doorbal and Weekes accompanied Lugo, and Schiller was placed in the front seat of the 4-Runner after it had been driven into the pole. Lugo and Doorbal then poured gasoline on the vehicle and set it ablaze. Lugo, Doorbal, and Weekes had planned to exit the scene in another vehicle that Weekes had driven to the scene, but they noticed that Schiller had somehow managed to exit his burning vehicle and was staggering in the roadway. Schiller had not been securely bound in the seat of the vehicle. At the urging of Lugo and Doorbal, Weekes used his vehicle to strike and run over Schiller. The three left the scene of these events believing they had killed Schiller. Lugo later instructed Stevenson Pierre to drive by the scene to determine if there was any police activity.

Miraculously, Schiller survived this attempt to take his life. He remembered awakening in a Miami hospital having a broken pelvis, ruptured bladder, bruises and burns, and temporary paralysis. Lugo and the others eventually learned that Schiller had survived, so they visited the hospital where they thought Schiller was recuperating, with a plan to suffocate him while he lay in his hospital bed. Unknown to Lugo and the others, based upon a well-founded fear for his safety, Schiller had already arranged to be airlifted to a New York hospital to complete his recuperation. Lugo, Doorbal, and some of the other captors proceeded to empty Schiller’s home of the remaining furnishings and valuables. A black leather couch and computer equipment were among the articles pilfered.

Schiller’s testimony at trial included not only a description of the events surrounding his abduction and captivity, but also testimony as to the assets that had been extorted from him and his attempts to recover those assets. He also stated that while he signed an agreement with Lugo and his cohorts, indicating that the events surrounding his “abduction” were actually the result of a failed business deal, he had always intended to report the incident to the police. He thought that signing the agreement was an expeditious way to recover much of the value of the assets that had been extorted from him. Schiller further testified that he never willingly gave any of his assets to Lugo, Doorbal, Mese, Torres, or anyone associated with them. He noted that the quitclaim deed to the home that he and his wife owned was forged, because on the date indicated for his wife’s purported signature, she was actually in South America.

Schiller identified several items of property that belonged to him or his wife and which police found in Lugo’s possession. Among the items were computer equipment, furniture, and keys to a BMW automobile. He also stated that drafts on his checking account, which were payable to John Mese or to entities related to Sun Gym, must have been those signed by him when he was blindfolded during his captivity because he never willingly signed the drafts. A forensic accountant confirmed that after an extensive review of records pertaining to corporations and accounts controlled by Lugo, Doorbal, or Mese, it was clear that money and assets formerly in Schiller’s control had been laundered.

Abduction, Attempted Extortion, and Murders of Frank Griga and Krisztina Furton

Frank Griga was also a wealthy Miami-area businessman, who accumulated much of his fortune from “900” lines in the phone industry. He and his girlfriend, Krisztina Furton, were both of Hungarian heritage. Lugo’s codefendant, Noel Door-bal, learned of Griga through Doorbal’s girlfriend at the time. Doorbal was quickly enthralled when shown a picture of a yellow Lamborghini owned by Griga and when he learned of Griga’s enormous wealth. Doorbal determined that Griga would be a prime target for kidnaping and extortion, and soon convinced Lugo to join his idea. Delgado was aware that Lugo and Doorbal intended to kidnap and extort a rich “Hungarian couple.” Lugo was a full participant in the plot and he told his girlfriend, Sabina Petrescu, that he intended to kidnap a Hungarian who drove a yellow Lamborghini or Ferrari. Lugo also related to Petrescu that he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and that Doorbal was a killer who assisted him in his CIA missions. Petrescu testified that Lugo and Doorbal had at their disposal a suitcase with handcuffs and syringes to use in the kidnaping.

Through an intermediary, Lugo and Doorbal arranged a business meeting with Griga to discuss Griga’s interest in investing in phone lines in India. The Indian investment scheme was totally bogus and designed as a scheme for Lugo and Door-bal to ingratiate themselves with Griga and to gain his confidence. At the first meeting, Griga indicated his lack of interest but Lugo and Doorbal persisted.

In May 1995, Lugo and Doorbal gathered the suitcase containing handcuffs and syringes and made another visit to Griga’s home, under the guise of presenting a computer to him as a gift. Lugo and Doorbal each had a concealed firearm during this visit, as they intended to execute the abduction plan at this time. This first attempt was aborted after only a fifteen-minute stay. Doorbal was irate that Lugo did not follow through with the abduction, but he was placated with the news that Lugo had arranged another meeting with Griga for later that day.

When Lugo and Doorbal returned to Griga’s home on May 24, 1995, they had concocted the scheme of inviting Griga and Furton to dinner, with the further goal of luring them to Doorbal’s apartment, where the abduction and extortion would begin. Between 10 and 10:30 p.m., Judi Bartusz, a friend of Griga’s, saw Lugo and Doorbal leave Griga’s home in a gold Mercedes, while Griga and Furton left in the Lamborghini.

On May 25, Delgado met Lugo and Doorbal at Doorbal’s apartment. Lugo informed him that Griga was already dead: Doorbal had killed Griga after the two became involved in a scuffle in and around the downstairs computer room in Door-bal’s apartment. Griga’s body had been placed in a bathtub in Doorbal’s apartment. Lugo related that when Furton had heard the scuffling between Doorbal and Griga, she rose from her seat in the living room and began to scream when she realized that Griga had been seriously injured. Lugo restrained her and subdued her with an injection of Rompun. Lugo expressed his anger toward Doorbal for having killed Griga before the extortion plan had been completed.

Lugo and Doorbal subsequently turned their focus toward Furton. They suspected that she must know the code to enter Griga’s home. Knowledge of the code would allow Lugo and Doorbal to enter Griga’s home with the hope of gaining access to valuables and, most importantly, bank account information for access to much of his wealth. Doorbal carried Fur-ton down the stairs from the second floor of the apartment. Furton was barely clad, wearing only the red leather jacket that she had worn when she left Griga’s home the night before, and a hood covered her head. Not long after Doorbal placed Fur-ton near the bottom of the stairs, although handcuffed, she began screaming for Gri-ga. At Lugo’s direction, Doorbal injected Furton with more horse tranquilizer, causing her to scream again. Lugo and Door-bal then questioned Furton about the security code for Griga’s home. Eventually, Furton refused to answer more questions. Doorbal injected her yet again with additional horse tranquilizer. Delgado testified that at this point, corrections officer John Raimondo arrived to “take care of the problem.” Lugo informed Delgado that Raimondo had been solicited to kill Furton and to dispose of her body along with Griga’s, but Raimondo did neither. He left Doorbal’s apartment, referring to Lugo and Doorbal as “amateurs.”

Armed with what he believed to be the access code for Griga’s home security, Lugo took Petrescu to attempt entry while Doorbal and Delgado stayed behind. After failing to gain access to Griga’s home, Lugo called Doorbal on his cellular phone. As the two talked, Petrescu heard Doorbal say, “The bitch is cold,” which she believed was Doorbal’s indication that Furton was dead. Lugo returned to Doorbal’s apartment, carrying some mail he had taken from Griga’s mailbox. Lugo instructed Delgado that he should return home, but bring a truck to Doorbal’s apartment the next morning.

When Delgado arrived with the truck on the morning of May 26, he noticed that Griga’s body had been placed on a black leather couch that had been removed from the home of Marc Schiller. Furton’s body was placed in a transfer box. The couch and the transfer box were loaded onto the truck. Neither body had been dismembered at this point.

Lugo, Doorbal, and Delgado proceeded with the bodies to a Hialeah warehouse. Delgado noticed a yellow Lamborghini stored there. He served as a lookout while Lugo and Doorbal went to purchase items including a chain saw, hatchet, knives, buckets, flint (for igniting a fire), fire extinguisher, and a mask respirator. When they returned, Lugo and Doorbal began dismembering the bodies of Griga and Furton. They used both the chain saw and the hatchet.

Doorbal received a message on his pager and had to leave the warehouse, so Delgado drove Mm to his apartment. When Delgado returned to the warehouse, Lugo was attempting to burn the heads, hands, and feet in a drum. This attempt was largely unsuccessful and resulted in such a large amount of smoke that the fire extinguisher was used to smother the fire. Lugo and Delgado next went to Doorbal’s apartment to remove everything, including the blood-stained carpeting, from the area where Doorbal and Griga had struggled. The items removed also included computer equipment stained with Griga’s blood. The items were placed in the storage area of Lugo’s apartment.

By May 27, 1995, Lugo had traveled to the Bahamas in an attempt to access money that Griga had deposited in bank accounts there. His efforts were unsuccessful and he returned to Miami. On May 28, 1995, Lugo, Doorbal, and Mario Gray disposed of the torsos and limbs of Griga and Furton. Lugo subsequently fled on a second trip to the Bahamas, where he was captured in early June 1995. He was apprehended in part due to information supplied to the police by his girlfriend, Sabina Petrescu.

At trial, the State presented more than ninety witnesses. Lugo presented no witnesses or evidence on his behalf during the guilt-innocence phase. The trial judge denied Lugo’s motions for judgment of acquittal. The jury convicted Lugo of all thirty-nine criminal counts with which he was charged, and he was adjudicated guilty on all thirty-nine counts. Lugo’s motion for new trial or, in the alternative, for arrest of judgment, was denied.

The State presented only victim impact evidence in the penalty phase. Lugo presented two witnesses on his behalf in the penalty phase: his mother, Carmen Lugo, and Santiago Gervacio, a long-time friend. Lugo’s mother presented testimony concerning two isolated incidents in which Lugo had been mistreated by his father when he was a child as punishment for misbehavior. One incident involved corporal punishment with a clothes hanger. The other occurred when Lugo’s father poured a bowl of spaghetti over Lugo’s head when he refused to eat. Lugo’s mother testified that on the whole, however, Lugo was raised in a loving home, that both she and his father loved him, and that he displayed love toward them both. Santiago Gervacio testified that Lugo was a passive person whom he had never seen commit a violent act. He also stated that Lugo showed great love toward his deceased sister’s four children, and even adopted them. Gervacio added that Lugo showed love toward his parents.

The jury voted, eleven to one, to recommend that Lugo receive the death penalty for the murders of both Griga and Furton. The circuit judge accepted the jury’s recommendation of death for each of the murders, sentenced Lugo to death for each of those offenses, and adjudicated him guilty on all thirty-nine counts of which he was convicted. The court ordered that all sentences were to run consecutively. In his sentencing order, the trial judge found five aggravating factors applicable to both murders: prior violent felonies (including the contemporaneous murder of the other victim, and the armed kidnaping, armed robbery, and attempted murder of Schiller); commission during the course of a kidnaping, for the purpose of avoiding arrest and for pecuniary gain; and cold, calculated, and premeditated (CCP). Additionally, the trial judge found that the heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) aggra-vator applied to the Furton murder. The trial judge gave great weight to each of these aggravators. He also found no applicable statutory mitigators but five non-statutory mitigators existed, each of which was given little weight or very little weight. This direct appeal followed.

GUILT PHASE

Denial of Motion to Sever Criminal Charges

Lugo asserted before trial that he was entitled to have separate trials on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) counts, the Schiller counts, and the Griga-Furton counts. He contended that a single trial on all the counts would result in spillover prejudice to the extent that jurors would not be able to make individual determinations of guilt or innocence regarding each criminal charge. The trial judge denied Lugo’s motion to sever the sets of counts from each other and to have separate trials. The only relief granted by the trial judge after a hearing on the motion was that Lugo would have a separate jury from codefend-ants Doorbal and Mese.

Denial of a motion for severance of criminal charges is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Crossley v. State, 596 So.2d 447 (Fla.1992). We have previously stated:

“[T]he rules [of criminal procedure] do not warrant joinder or consolidation of criminal charges based on similar but separate episodes, separated in time, which are connected only by similar circumstances and the accused’s alleged guilt in both or all instances.” Courts may consider “the temporal and geographical association, the nature of the crimes, and the manner in which they were committed.” However, interests in practicality, efficiency, expense, convenience, and judicial economy, do not outweigh the defendant’s right to a fair determination of guilt or innocence.

Wright v. State, 586 So.2d 1024, 1029-30 (Fla.1991) (citations omitted) (quoting Gar cia v. State, 568 So.2d 896, 899 (Fla.1990)). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.150 requires that the criminal charges joined for trial “be considered in an episodic sense.” Garcia v. State, 568 So.2d 896, 899 (Fla.1990). Moreover, there must be a “meaningful relationship” between or among the charges before they can be tried together. Ellis v. State, 622 So.2d 991, 999 (Fla.1993). That is to say, “the crimes in question must be linked in some significant way.” Id. at 1000.

Lugo primarily addresses the trial court’s failure to grant his pretrial motion to sever the Schiller counts, the Griga-Furton counts, and the racketeering counts from each other so that separate trials could be conducted on each set of charges. However, he generally fails to address the important part that the racketeering charges had in the trial judge’s decision to deny the motion for severance. The trial judge noted that the State had properly pled the racketeering-related charges in the indictment, with events involving the Schiller counts and the Griga-Furton counts serving as two of the required predicate acts. He also noted that he was being asked “in advance of hearing one shred of evidence [during the trial]” to sever the Schiller counts, the Griga-Furton counts, and the racketeering counts, when one of the crucial points that the State intended to assert was that the Schiller counts and the Griga-Furton counts were integral parts of the very racketeering enterprise in which Lugo and others had engaged. At the pretrial hearing, the trial judge indicated that Lugo was free to file a formal motion to dismiss the racketeering charges if the State failed during trial to present evidence of the link between the Schiller and Griga-Furton counts and their relationship to Lugo’s alleged racketeering activities. On the facts before us, we are not prepared to determine that the trial judge erred in his conclusion that the RICO charges provided a “relevant relationship” between the Schiller and Griga-Furton counts, thereby justifying a single trial on all charges filed against Lugo. This conclusion reflects the requirement that there be a “meaningful relationship” among charges that are tried together, as we discussed in Ellis. See Ellis, 622 So.2d at 999. Moreover, unlike Ellis, the instant case involves charges of racketeering that link criminal incidents which might appear upon initial inspection to be temporally unrelated because they occurred within a six-month span. The racketeering charges provide the “significant way” in which the Schiller counts, the Griga-Furton counts, and Lugo’s alleged racketeering activity were linked. See generally Ellis, 622 So.2d at 1000.

Florida law fully supports the trial judge’s conclusion. In Shimek v. State, 610 So.2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the appellant, an attorney, sought before trial to have one count of grand theft severed both from other counts of grand theft and from a count of racketeering. The appellant contended that severance was necessary because one grand theft count (the “Skipper” count) involved investing settlement funds of a client of his legal practice in a bank that engaged in questionable practices, whereas the other grand theft counts (the “Pierce-LaCoste” counts) involved investors sought by the appellant or the principals of that same bank. The appellant argued that the count involving his client was not related in an episodic sense to the other grand theft counts or to the racketeering count, but the trial court denied the motion to sever. In concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever, the district court noted several relationships between the Skipper and Pierce-LaCoste counts: the appellant and several principals of the subject bank were involved in each set of counts; each set of counts centered on an investment scheme involving the subject bank; and in each set of counts the appellant used his attorney trust account to channel funds to the subject bank. See id. at 636-37. The district court concluded not only that the Skipper and Pierce-LaCoste grand theft counts were related to each other and constituted predicate acts for the racketeering count, but also that the grand theft counts were linked to the racketeering count in such a way that a unified trial on all of the grand theft counts and the racketeering count was justified. See id. at 640.

We note that the district court in Shi-mek had the benefit of reviewing the entire record of the trial in determining the link between the grand theft counts and the racketeering counts. In the instant case, Lugo sought before trial to sever the Schiller, Griga-Furton, and racketeering counts from each other before any evidence of the relationship of the Schiller and Griga-Furton counts to the alleged racketeering activity had been subjected to adversarial testing during the trial. The trial judge reviewed the indictment against Lugo and determined that the State conformed to the pleading requirements of Florida’s substantive RICO statute. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining Lugo’s pretrial motion to sever, especially when it indicated that it would entertain a formal motion to dismiss the racketeering charges if the State did not present sufficient evidence during trial to support them. Moreover, as in Shimek, the existence of several relationships between the Schiller counts and the Griga-Furton counts, and their links to the racketeering counts, justified the trial judge’s decision to conduct a unified trial.

We also disagree with Lugo’s contention that the racketeering activities were not related in an episodic sense. The unfortunate racketeering activity in which Lugo and others participated began with the abduction, extortion, and attempted murder of Marc Schiller, continued with the incident involving the planned abduction and extortion of Winston Lee, and reached its tragic pinnacle in the events related to the abduction and terror-filled murders of Frank Griga and Krisztina Furton. The careful planning that surrounded each of these incidents, along with the manner of execution, obviates the conclusion that they were entirely random, disconnected events.

With regard to the abduction and subsequent crimes against Schiller, as well as the abduction and subsequent crimes against Griga and Furton, the record indicates that at least one plot was aborted before an actual abduction took place. Each plot involved intricate planning and the assignment of specific duties to each participant, including Lugo. Indeed, in the Schiller abduction, testimony adduced at trial described Lugo’s role as equivalent to that of a military general. Stun guns, handguns, and tape, among other items, were employed to subdue or restrain Schiller. Lugo and Doorbal also visited Griga’s Golden Beach home before the abduction of Griga and Furton occurred. During the last visit before the abduction occurred, Lugo and Doorbal each had a concealed firearm. Testimony from Sabina Petrescu, Lugo’s girlfriend, indicated that Doorbal was very upset when Lugo did not follow through on the plan to kidnap Griga and Furton during this particular visit, but was later placated by Lugo with the knowledge that they would execute the abduction later that evening. While Griga and Furton were held hostage, both were subdued with Rompun, which Lugo and Doorbal had procured for that specific purpose. Furton was also subdued with handcuffs and tape, as was Schiller. Furthermore, it is important to note that in the intervening months between the Schiller and Griga-Furton abductions, Lugo directed the surveillance of Winston Lee’s townhome, with the goal of abducting Lee and obtaining his assets. This type of activity over a six-month period does not have the characteristics of impulsive, sporadic behavior. The nature of these crimes removes them from the category of being merely similar to each other, and requires that they be placed in the category of “connected acts or transactions.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.150(a).

We further note that if separate trials on the Schiller and Griga-Furton counts had been held, evidence of the abduction, extortion, and attempted murder of Schiller would have been admissible in Lugo’s trial for the abduction, attempted extortion, and murders of Griga and Fur-ton, and vice versa. This evidence would have been admissible in separate trials to establish the existence of an ongoing, common scheme to target wealthy victims, as well as to establish the entire context within which Lugo’s criminal activity occurred. See, e.g., Fotopoulos v. State, 608 So.2d 784, 790 (Fla.1992) (determining that severance of murder charges was not required, in part because evidence of commission of one murder would have been admissible in a separate trial of the other to show a common scheme and context in which criminal activity occurred); Bundy v. State, 455 So.2d 330, 345 (Fla.1984) (determining that severance of murder charges was not required, in part because evidence of murder at one location would have been admissible in separate trial for murder at other location due to common scheme involved in both), abrogated on other grounds, Fenelon v. State, 594 So.2d 292 (Fla.1992). Therefore, due to the common scheme that is related to both the Schiller and Griga-Furton counts, Lugo “has failed to demonstrate that a severance was necessary for a fair determination of his guilt or innocence.” Bundy, 455 So.2d at 345.

Based on the reasons above, we determine that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied Lugo’s pretrial motion to sever charges.

Sufficiency of the Evidence for RICO Convictions

Lugo asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for RICO activity and conspiracy to commit RICO activity. The elements of a crime under Florida’s RICO statute are (1) conduct or participation in an enterprise through (2) a pattern of racketeering activity. See, e.g., Gross v. State, 765 So.2d 39, 42 (Fla.2000). With regard to the “enterprise” element, the State must prove the following subelements: (1) an ongoing organization, formal or informal, with a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct, which (2) functions as a continuing unit. See id. at 45.

Lugo’s assertion that the State failed to prove the enterprise requirement is unavailing. The State proved, through the testimony of Jorge Delgado and others, that Lugo, Doorbal, and others specifically associated for the illicit purposes of kidnaping and extorting money from Marc Schiller, as well as the illicit purposes of kidnaping and securing the assets of Griga and Furton. When we further consider the coordinated events, especially surveillance activity, surrounding the planned (but never executed) abduction and extortion of Winston Lee, we determine that competent, substantial evidence supports the enterprise element of the RICO statute.

Specifically, testimony regarding the militaristic nature in which Lugo, Doorbal, and others conducted the abduction and extortion in connection with Schiller proves an association for illicit purposes regarding that event. The common purpose and continual functioning of the organization were further shown by the testimony describing the coordinated but ultimately aborted plan to abduct and seize the assets of Winston Lee a few months after the Schiller episode. The culmination of the organization’s common purpose and continual functioning was the careful planning and execution of the abductions of Griga and Furton. Jorge Delgado testified that Doorbal had developed a plan to kidnap and extort money from “a Hungarian couple.” Lugo later confirmed Doorbal’s plan to Delgado. Lugo and Doorbal subsequently ingratiated themselves with both Griga and Furton while plying Griga with visions of enormous profits from their bogus scheme to invest in phone lines in India. As in the abduction of Marc Schiller and the hoped-for abduction of Winston Lee, the abductions of Griga and Furton were, most assuredly, not random, spur-of-the-moment events lacking a common purpose and organizational structure. Rather, the events surrounding the involvement of Lugo and his team of evil with Schiller, Lee, Griga, and Furton evince a common purpose of carefully targeting specific victims for abduction and extortion. Moreover, in each instance at least one plan to abduct each victim was aborted or never executed, further evincing the non-random nature of the organization with which Lugo was associated. Lugo and his organized group planned their crimes in advance and employed devices they had acquired to facilitate those crimes. Therefore, “[a] jury could reasonably conclude that [Lugo] and his associates shared the requisite common purpose of an ongoing organization,” Gross, 765 So.2d at 47, thereby establishing the first subelement of the enterprise element.

The State also proved that the organization with which Lugo was associated functioned as a continuing unit, thus satisfying the second subelement of the enterprise requirement. “Continuity [of an alleged RICO enterprise] exists where an unchanging pattern of roles is necessary and utilized to carry out the predicate acts of racketeering.” Id. at 46. Lugo contends that the State’s evidence failed to show an unchanging pattern of roles. We disagree. Stevenson Pierre testified that Lugo directed the Schiller abduction in militaristic fashion. Jorge Delgado testified that Lugo coordinated the surveillance of Winston Lee’s townhouse in preparation for an abduction attempt that never materialized. Delgado’s testimony also established that while the initial plan to kidnap and obtain the assets of Griga and Furton may have been Doorbal’s, Lugo was heavily involved in the planning and was a primary participant in the execution of the Griga-Furton abduction. Lugo participated in several conversations with Griga pri- or to the kidnaping, in which Lugo and Doorbal floated their contrived plan for phone lines in India. Lugo and Doorbal also jointly lured Griga and Furton out of Griga’s home on May 24, 1995, with the intent of implementing their kidnaping and extortion plan. Moreover, Lugo subsequently not only injected Furton with Rompun but also directed Doorbal to do so — acts which independently or in concert contributed to Furton’s death. Based on these facts, competent, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Lugo assumed and carried out a managerial function in the three major undertakings of an organization whose purpose was to kidnap carefully targeted victims and to extort money from them. Doorbal was literally his partner in crime, making for an unchanging pattern of roles which was utilized to execute the predicate acts of racketeering.

We further determine that the State presented competent, substantial evidence to prove the pattern of racketeering element. To satisfy the pattern of racketeering requirement, the State must offer proof of the “similarity and interrelatedness of racketeering activities [and] proof that a continuity of particular criminal activity exists.” State v. Lucas, 600 So.2d 1093, 1094 (Fla.1992) (quoting Bowden v. State, 402 So.2d 1173, 1174 (Fla.1981)). Relying primarily on H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989), Lugo claims that the predicate acts listed in the indictment against him were actually isolated incidents that extended over no more than a few weeks or months and, most importantly, did not threaten any future criminal conduct. We disagree.

The predicate acts in which Lugo and his organized group engaged spanned approximately a six-month period. In State v. Lucas, 600 So.2d 1093 (Fla.1992), we determined that predicate acts involving a series of fraudulent investment-related activities met the continuity requirement of the pattern of racketeering element when those acts were perpetrated over a six-month period. Specifically, we concluded that the fraudulent activities in Lucas conformed to the concept of “open-ended” continuity discussed in H.J., Inc., because the only thing that prevented the enterprise from perpetrating subsequent fraudulent acts was the arrest of some of its key members. Since the organization had performed predicate acts in the past and posed a real threat of executing similar predicate acts in the future, a pattern of racketeering was established. See Lucas, 600 So.2d at 1095-96.

The logic in Lucas applies to Lugo’s case. The arrests of Lugo, Doorbal, Delgado, and others associated in the RICO enterprise effectively forced the enterprise out of business. Had those arrests not occurred, there would have been nothing to keep the enterprise from executing further kidnaping and extortion plots. Just as in Lucas, “[t]he nature of the operation [with which Lugo was associated] suggests the threat of continued criminal activity.” Lucas, 600 So.2d at 1095. Moreover, Jorge Delgado’s testimony afforded insight into the level of sophistication that Lugo and his companions invested in their abduction and extortion activities. Abduction and extortion “was the business in which [Lugo and his group] had associated themselves.” Id. Therefore, the continuity of particular criminal activity is again shown because “the threat of continued criminal activity [can] be proven by showing the predicate acts to be part of an ongoing entity’s regular way of doing business.” Id. Finally, we note that both in Lucas and in Lugo’s case, the predicate RICO activities “were directed toward different persons, and there is no suggestion that they occurred at the same time.” Id. at 1096.

Therefore, based on the above, we conclude that competent, substantial evidence supported Lugo’s RICO convictions. The State presented evidence to satisfy both the “enterprise” element and the “pattern of racketeering activity” element as required. No relief is warranted on this issue.

State’s Opening Argument

Lugo asserts that fundamental error occurred during the State’s opening argument, warranting a new trial. When we consider the challenged comments in the totality of the circumstances of Lugo’s trial, we disagree.

Lugo contends that comments by the prosecution discredited a legal defense on which he supposedly intended to rely. However, he fails to assert in any detail what legal defense was discredited. Moreover, our review of the prosecution’s comments does not reveal that any of Lugo’s defenses were specifically and pointedly discredited. Therefore, we decline to grant relief on that basis.

The other cases on which Lugo relies are distinguishable. In First v. State, 696 So.2d 1357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), the district court reversed the defendant’s conviction when the prosecution, during opening argument, called the defendant’s main alibi witness a “liar.” Unlike the circumstances in this case, counsel for the defendant in First contemporaneously objected to the prosecution’s comment. Moreover, in First the district court noted the completely circumstantial nature of the evidence against the defendant and its less than compelling nature. Conversely, in Lugo’s case, direct evidence in the form of testimony by Jorge Delgado and others familiar with Lugo’s involvement in the various schemes with which he was charged — not to mention the physical evidence garnered against Lugo along with his leading police to the location where Griga and Furton’s body parts could be found — presents a much more compelling case for Lugo’s guilt. We therefore cannot conclude that error occurred in the prosecution’s opening statement such that it “reache[d] down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” McDonald v. State, 743 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla.1999) (quoting Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411, 418 n. 8 (Fla.1998)).

Lugo’s reliance on Traina v. State, 657 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), is also unavailing. While the opinion in Traína states that it is improper for a prosecutor to attack a defendant’s character, the court nevertheless concluded in Traína that the challenged comments did not constitute reversible error in light of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Finally, in Fernandez v. State, 730 So.2d 277 (Fla.1999), on which Lugo also relies, we noted that although the prosecution characterized the defendant as a “robber” and “murderer,” these statements were generally supported by record evidence. In Lugo’s case, the evidence shows that the murder victims were in fact preyed upon, tortured, dismembered, and burned, which the prosecution detailed in its opening statement in sometimes graphic terms. While we caution both prosecution and defense counsel in every trial to focus the opening statements on the evidence and facts to be proven, we cannot say that when viewed in the totality of the circumstances of Lugo’s case, the prosecution’s comments drifted so far afield from the evidence adduced at trial as to constitute fundamental error. At most, selected comments by the prosecutor were intemperate and may have walked the edge of emotion, but the error, if any, was ultimately harmless. Therefore, no relief is warranted on this issue.

Adverse Cross-Examination by Codefendant Doorbal

Next, Lugo claims that his right to a fair trial was impinged by codefendant Noel Doorbal’s adverse cross-examination of several State witnesses. Lugo asserts that this cross-examination attempted to shift all blame to Lugo and effectively compelled Lugo to defend against two different prosecution teams: the State and his codefendant, Doorbal.

Lugo asserts a litany of instances in the record in which he alleges that cross-examination by Doorbal made him appear to be doubly guilty in the eyes of the jury. However, we agree with the State that in most, if not all, of the instances cited by Lugo, Doorbal’s cross-examination of witnesses amounted to an examination of the evidence the State had presented. This evidence in many instances not only inculpated Lugo but also Doorbal. Each defendant in a trial is entitled to engage in vigorous cross-examination of the witnesses presented against him. See, e.g., Oakes v. State, 746 So.2d 510, 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (stating that “a defendant in a criminal case has the constitutional right to fully cross-examine a prosecution witness concerning events about which the witness testified during direct examination”). Moreover, in many of the instances which Lugo cites as being improper adverse cross-examination by co-defendant Doorbal, Lugo failed to object to preserve the issue for review. This leaves fundamental error as the only basis for relief and we decline to apply such doctrine to grant relief on this issue.

Moreover, in McCray v. State, 416 So.2d 804 (Fla.1982), we concluded that in a trial in which appellant McCray asserted that his right to a fair trial was violated “because the defenses of [his] codefendants ... were completely antagonistic to his defense,” id. at 806, the joint trial of McCray and his codefendants “did not in any way prejudice the right of [McCray] to a fair determination of his guilt or innocence of the offense [of first-degree murder].” Id. at 807. We noted in McCray that the appellant had a full opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses brought against him, and that the evidence was not so complex that the jury could not understand the case, apply the evidence, and make individualized determinations of guilt regarding each defendant. See id. at 806-07. These same circumstances hold true in Lugo’s case and lead us to the conclusion that Lugo was not deprived of his right “to a fair determination of his guilt or innocence of the offense[s] charged.” Id. at 807. We therefore deny relief on this issue.

Evidence of Lugo’s Federal Fraud Conviction and Probation

Lugo claims that the State imper-missibly introduced evidence pertaining both to his prior federal conviction for fraud and his federal probation to establish his propensity to commit crimes or bad acts. The State asserts that introduction of the evidence was proper to show the involvement of both Lugo and codefendant Mese in a scheme to launder money, gained from the extortion of Marc Schiller, that Lugo ultimately used to pay restitution for his federal fraud conviction and thereby end his probation early. With some qualification, we agree with the State.

The State presented various witnesses, including Lugo’s federal probation officer, who testified as to their knowledge of various aspects of Lugo’s previous federal fraud conviction or the probation he was serving for that conviction. Most of the testimony from these witnesses was properly linked to other evidence presented by the State that Lugo and codefendant Mese had laundered proceeds garnered from the abduction of Schiller through various accounts controlled by Mese, with the goal of allowing Lugo to pay approximately $70,000 in restitution to end his federal probation early. In short, the State showed a motive for Lugo and Doorbal to launder money.

In Bryan v. State, 533 So.2d 744 (Fla.1988), we addressed the admissibility of evidence related to a collateral crime:

[T]he test of the admissibility of such evidence [is] one of relevancy. Even if the evidence in question tends to reveal the commission of a collateral crime, it is admissible if found to be relevant for any purpose save that of showing bad character or propensity [to commit crimes or other bad acts].

Id. at 746-47 (quoting Randolph v. State, 463 So.2d 186, 189 (Fla.1984)). Our review of the record convinces us that the State’s evidence regarding Lugo’s federal conviction and probation was highly relevant to proving allegations of money laundering. Much of the State’s evidence on this issue established that one motive for Lugo and codefendant Mese to engage in money laundering was to bring Lugo’s probation to an early end. Moreover, testimony further established that Lugo and Mese acted on this motivation by facilitating the laundering of money gained from the Schiller episode through accounts controlled by Mese. In a criminal case, “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible to prove the defendant’s motive.” Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.14 (2002 ed.). In Sims v. State, 681 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1996), we determined that evidence of a defendant’s current status of being on parole was properly admitted to show the defendant’s motive for murdering a police officer when the police officer stopped the car the defendant was driving. A drug-sniffing dog at the scene subsequently alerted the police officer to the possible presence of illegal drugs in the defendant’s car. We determined that the trial judge properly admitted testimony from the defendant’s parole officer because “the State offered [the parole officer’s] testimony to establish [the defendant’s] parole status and the fact that he knew illegal drug possession was a parole violation” that would result in his incarceration if detected by the police officer. Id. at 1115. We added that while the defendant’s parole status was not independently admissible during the guilt phase of his trial, “it became relevant and admissible when it was linked to a motive for murdering the police officer.” Id. In Lugo’s case, evidence of his conviction and probationary status was relevant and admissible to show his motive for, and need for, engaging in money laundering. The probative value of the evidence to show money laundering outweighed the possible prejudice to Lugo. See Amoros v. State, 531 So.2d 1256, 1260 (Fla.1988) (noting that to be admissible, evidence must be relevant and its probative value must outweigh the possibility of prejudice to the defendant).

Accordingly, we determine that no harm warranting a new trial occurred due to the introduction of evidence concerning Lugo’s federal fraud conviction and probationary status. No relief is warranted on this issue.

Possible Bias of State Witness Lillian Torres

Lugo’s ex-wife, Lillian Torres, was presented as a witness by the State. Her testimony primarily concerned her role in the transfer of a home owned by Marc Schiller. As part of the extortion involved with Schiller, Lugo compelled Schiller to sign a document effecting the transfer of a condominium he owned in the Miami area. The ultimate transferee was Lillian Torres. Lugo claims that reversible error occurred when, on cross-examination of Torres, his counsel was prohibited from asking Torres whether her lawyer accompanied her when she was subpoenaed for questioning at the state attorney’s office with regard to her knowledge of the events in which her ex-husband had been involved.

This issue warrants little discussion. The record clearly shows that Lugo’s counsel was allowed to inquire as to any biases toward the State that Torres may have had. The cross-examination did not yield any evidence of any deals between the State and Torres, nor did Lugo present any compelling evidence of a deal during his trial. We agree with the trial judge that the relevant and permissible inquiry concerned Torres’s possible bias toward the State, not whether her lawyer accompanied her during questioning. Lugo’s reliance on Jean-Mary v. State, 678 So.2d 928 (Fla. Sd DCA 1996), is misplaced. In Lugo’s case, unlike the circumstances in Jean-Mary, the witness under cross-examination had not been arrested and charged with a crime which would warrant further inquiry by defense counsel. Therefore, Jean-Mary is inapposite. No relief is warranted.

Brady Violations

Lugo contends that two violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), occurred, each of which warrants a new trial or entitles Lugo to conduct further discovery on the matter. We determine that each assertion is without merit.

Lugo first contends that a Brady violation occurred due to the State’s failure to disclose its knowledge of the federal investigation of Marc Schiller for Medicare fraud. Schiller was presented as a witness by the State during the guilt-innocence phase regarding the events surrounding his abduction and his loss of assets. The record reflects that Lugo was aware Schiller would testify during trial. Moreover, the record establishes that through a pretrial deposition of Jorge Delgado, Lugo knew not only that Delgado may have been involved in Medicare fraud, but also that Delgado had alleged Schiller was also involved in the fraud. At a post-trial Richardson hearing on the matter, the State indicated that it turned over knowledge of Delgado’s possible involvement to federal authorities. The State denied having knowledge that Schiller was the specific target of a federal investigation, and stated that Schiller had denied involvement in Medicare fraud when questioned. The State further denied having made any deals with Schiller to speak with federal authorities on his behalf in exchange for favorable testimony at Lugo’s trial. Most important, Lugo failed to present any evidence at the hearing that the State either withheld any document or other knowledge of the possibility of a federal investigation into Schiller’s Medicare activities, or that the State had made a deal with Schiller to speak with federal authorities in exchange for favorable testimony. The trial judge denied Lugo’s motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, a new round of discovery concerning the State’s knowledge of Schiller’s indictment on Medicare fraud charges. This decision was not erroneous.

The three elements of a Brady claim are: (1) The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaeh-ing; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice to the defendant must have ensued. See Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000). Even if Lugo could establish the first element, he cannot satisfy either the second or third elements, because he was fully aware of Schiller’s possible involvement in Medicare fraud and therefore cannot establish how he was prejudiced by the State’s alleged failure to disclose its knowledge of Schiller’s activities with regard to Medicare. That Schiller was subsequently indicted on federal Medicare fraud charges is of little import in the wake of Lugo’s failure to establish that the State knew of Schiller’s pending indictment or had any involvement with it whatsoever. We further note that Lugo had a full opportunity to cross-examine Schiller, contrary to Lugo’s contention. Lugo contends that because he was not allowed to ask Schiller why he and his codefendants believed that Schiller committed Medicare fraud, his right to cross-examine an adverse witness was violated. The trial court sustained the State’s objection on the basis that the question called for speculation on Schiller’s part. We determine that the trial court did not err in sustaining the objection, and that its action did not impinge on Lugo’s right to a vigorous cross-examination of Schiller. Moreover, this incident was isolated and did not affect Lugo’s right to a fair trial. No relief is warranted on this issue.

Lugo next argues that a Brady violation occurred due to the State’s failure to disclose that the medical examiner, Dr. Mittleman, who testified in the guilt-innocence phase of Lugo’s trial, had been the subject of an administrative investigation in a ease unrelated to Lugo’s. We disagree.

Dr. Mittleman was the subject of an administrative, not a criminal, inquiry. The record shows that the investigation concluded that he had failed to follow a recording protocol in reporting some of his findings in an unrelated case — at most, a very minor error. The trial judge declined to grant relief to Lugo because Dr. Mittle-man did not opine as to the specific or exclusive cause of death of Griga or Furton. In Breedlove v. State, 580 So.2d 605 (Fla.1991), an appellant who had been charged with and convicted of murder alleged that a Brady violation occurred when the State failed to disclose that the detectives to whom the appellant had confessed had engaged in criminal activity (drug conspiracy and drug use) unrelated to the appellant’s case. The detectives were subsequently investigated by the internal affairs division of their police department for this alleged criminal activity. We rejected the appellant’s claim because it failed to meet the materiality prong of Brady. In the instant case, Dr. Mittleman was subject only to an administrative investigation, and the record establishes that the State never contemplated criminal charges against him. As in Breedlove, we conclude that no Brady violation occurred. Even if the evidence of the administrative investigation of Dr. Mittleman had been made available to the defense, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. See id. at 609. We therefore deny relief on this issue.

State’s Closing Argument

Lugo asserts that several statements made by the State during its closing argument in the guilt phase constitute fundamental error and warrant relief in the form of a new trial. Though we are concerned with one set of remarks in particular, we nevertheless conclude that relief based on fundamental error is not warranted in this case.

The prosecutor’s statements which cause us concern are those related to an asserted “Golden Rule” argument. During her closing argument, the prosecutor addressed the jury as follows:

Imagine with tape over your mouth and a hood over your head, imagine it on Krisztina. Not on yourselves, on Krisz-tina and what Krisztina is going through.

An error is fundamental in nature when it “reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” McDonald, 743 So.2d at 505. An improper “Golden Rule” argument typically occurs when counsel asks jurors to place themselves in the circumstances of the victim. It extends beyond the evidence and “unduly create[s], arouse[s] and inflame[s] the sympathy, prejudice and passions of [the] jury to the detriment of the accused.” Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411, 421 (Fla.1998) (quoting Barnes v. State, 58 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla.1951)). The prosecutor unmistakably asked the jurors to place themselves in Furton’s position, which clearly is error. We reject the State’s assertion that the prosecutor’s remarks were merely permissible comments on the evidence. A seasoned prosecutor involved in a capital case knows better than to make an improper “Golden Rule” argument. However, because this incident was isolated, and an overwhelming amount of unrebutted evidence exists against Lugo, we determine that the error is, on this record, harmless in nature and therefore deny relief.

Lugo further asserts that the prosecutor’s comments about the “gratuitous violence,” “the horrible things [that occur] in our world,” and the “evil” of Lugo’s “hell on wheels” behavior constitute impermissible character attacks that warrant a new trial. The evidence presented by the State had strong indications that Lugo engaged in gratuitous violence and committed horrible acts. Therefore, we decline to find reversible error in those statements. Moreover, while characterizations employing the terms “evil” and “hell on wheels” may have tested the bounds of permissible argument, we determine that these comments conform to our opinion in Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963 (Fla.1993). In Crump, we concluded that fundamental error did not occur when the prosecutor made an isolated remark during closing argument in the guilt-innocence phase which characterized the defendant as “an ‘octopus’ clouding the water in order to ‘slither away.’ ” Id. at 971. As in Crump, relief based on fundamental error is not warranted.

Next, we consider whether the prosecutor’s comments describing Schiller as having been “hog tied” and likening his captivity to an “Iranian hostage” situation constituted fundamental error. We considered similar remarks in McDonald. There, the prosecutor in his pen