Full opinion text
PER CURIAM. Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Jr., appeals his convictions of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of home invasion robbery with a firearm and his corresponding sentences of death and life imprisonment. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the convictions and sentences. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Jr. (Gonzalez) was charged with two counts of first-degree premeditated murder in the shooting deaths of Byrd and Melanie Billings in their Escambia County home on the evening of July 9, 2009. Gonzalez was also charged with armed home invasion robbery for this incident. Gonzalez and four other men — Frederick Thornton, Rakeem Florence, Donnie Stallworth, and Wayne Coldiron — invaded the Billings’ home at three different entry points with the intent to steal a safe that purportedly contained $18 million. The men wore black clothing, masks, and gloves and were carrying firearms. Florence carried an AK-47, Stallworth and Thornton had shotguns, Coldiron had a .357 revolver, and Gonzalez carried a nine-millimeter automatic pistol. Three others-Leonard Gonzalez, Sr., Gary Sumner, and Pamela Long-Wiggins — also had roles in the crimes. Gonzalez, Sr., remained in Gonzalez’s large red van outside of the Billings’ home. Sumner stayed out on the highway in a Ford Explorer, communicating with Gonzalez via walkie-talkie. Long-Wiggins participated after the fact by hiding the safe taken from the Billings’ home and either hiding or disposing of the weapons used in the home invasion. The men did not know that the Billings had a surveillance system in their house in order to monitor their nine adopted children who have various disabilities. That surveillance system captured some of the events during the invasion, including the Billings being accosted in their living room, and provided a view of Gonzalez’s red van parked outside of the home. However, there was no camera in the Billings’ master bedroom where the fatal shots were fired. Two of the participants in the crimes, Thornton and Florence, told their families that they knew about the murders because they had accompanied some men in a van to the house to buy “weed,” but never entered the house and did not know that anything was going to happen until they heard the shots and saw the men run out of the house. At the urging of their families, Thornton and Florence turned themselves in to law enforcement. When the police confronted the men with evidence from the surveillance video, Thornton and Florence admitted that their initial stories were false and confessed to their involvement in the crimes. Both men testified that Gonzalez was the individual who planned the crimes. He solicited the others to participate in the home invasion robbery in order to get $13 million that he believed the Billings kept in the safe. The group met several times at Fifth Dimensions, a car body shop in Fort Walton Beach owned by Sumner. As the plans progressed, they also met at Gonzalez, Sr.’s trailer in Pensacola. Gonzalez would contact Sumner, who would then contact Thornton, Florence, and Stallworth, to gather for these meetings. On the day of the murders, the group was contacted and drove in Stallworth’s Explorer to a Wal-Mart in Gulf Breeze to meet Gonzalez. Gonzalez was driving a red minivan that belonged to Long-Wiggins. Sumner, Stallworth, and Gonzalez went into the Wal-Mart, and Thornton and Florence remained in the Explorer in the parking lot. A security video from the Wal-Mart places Sumner, Stallworth, and Gonzalez inside the store on July 9 at 3:30 p.m., where they purchased a pair of boots. The men then drove in the two vehicles to Gonzalez, Sr.’s house, where Coldiron was also present. Gonzalez provided the weapons, black clothing, masks, and gloves that the participants used in the crimes. Gonzalez showed the others pictures and a layout of the Billings’ home and gave them their assignments. He told Thornton and Florence to enter through a door on the far left of the home, Stallworth to enter through the front door, and Coldiron to enter with Gonzalez through a sliding glass door in the master bedroom. Gonzalez showed the others how to use zip ties to secure the victims’ hands and passed out the ties. He remained in charge after the participants entered the Billings’ home. Gonzalez accosted Mr. Billings and demanded that Mr. Billings tell him where the money was located. When Mr. Billings replied that he did not have any money, Gonzalez fired a shot into the floor. Gonzalez repeated the same question and received the same response from Mr. Billings. Gonzalez then shot Mr. Billings in the leg. Gonzalez repeated the question again, received the same response, and shot Mr. Billings in the other leg. Gonzalez then led the Billings into the master bedroom. Thornton and Florence’s testimony about the events inside the house was consistent with the surveillance video. According to Thornton’s account, the Billings, Gonzalez, and Stallworth were in the bedroom. While Thornton retrieved duffel bags from the van outside, he heard three more shots. When Thornton returned to the bedroom, he saw Mr. Billings lying face down on the floor in a pool of blood. Gonzalez then asked Mrs. Billings to open the safe in the closet of the bedroom. Thornton saw Gonzalez fire the gun again, but could not see Mrs. Billings. According to Florence’s account, only Gonzalez was in the bedroom with the Billings when the shots were fired. Gonzalez then ordered the others to take the safe and leave. When Florence entered the bedroom to retrieve the safe, he saw Mr. Billings lying on the floor, but could not see Mrs. Billings. The group left in Gonzalez’s large red van, then met up with Sumner in the Explorer. The safe and guns were transferred to the Explorer. Gonzalez told Gonzalez, Sr. and Coldiron to drive the large red van back to Gonzalez, Sr.’s house in Pensacola. The others got into the Explorer, removed their black clothing, and drove to a location where they had left Long-Wiggins’ red minivan before the crimes were carried out. Gonzalez, Sumner, and Stallworth drove the red minivan back to the Pensacola area. Thornton and Florence returned in the Explorer and met with the others in the red minivan at the Wal-Mart in Gulf Breeze. Both vehicles were driven to Long-Wiggins’ antique store. The safe was left with Long-Wiggins in a storage area behind her store. The guns were left with Long-Wiggins and Gonzalez. Gonzalez told Thornton and Florence to take the clothing worn during the crimes and burn all of it, which they did. Law enforcement was called to the Billings’ home by April Spencer, a registered nurse who lived in a trailer on the Billings’ property and helped them with the children. Spencer had been alerted when Ad-rianna, one of the Billings’ children, came to her trailer. Adrianna had been instructed to go to Spencer’s trailer in a phone conversation she had with Ashley Markham, the Billings’ adult daughter who did not live in the home. Markham had received a missed call from her mother’s home phone number and returned the call. Jake, another of the Billings’ children, answered the call and was screaming incoherently. Markham asked him to speak to their mom or dad, but instead, Adrianna got on the phone and alerted Markham about what was happening in the house. Markham told Adrianna to run to April Spencer’s house and get her. When Spencer arrived, she saw blood in the hallway and found the Billings on the floor of the master bedroom. She called emergency services, and the Escambia County Sheriffs Office responded to the scene. The Billings both died of multiple gunshot wounds. Mr. Billings was shot five times: in both legs, the left cheek (exiting at the right side of the neck), and twice in the back of the head. The two leg wounds would have been survivable; the cheek wound have been survivable for a few minutes until the victim drowned in his own blood; the two head wounds were inflicted close together, based on the similar angles and positions of the wounds, and were each fatal. Mrs. Billings was shot four times: once in the face, once in the head, and twice in the chest. All of her wounds were fatal; the first shot to her face would have rendered her unconscious; the other shots were inflicted as she lay on her back on the floor. Mr. Billings was located face down in the bedroom with a zip tie on his left wrist; Mrs. Billings was on her back in front of the closet. All of the bullets and shell casings recovered from the crime scene were nine millimeter. A firearms examiner was able to show that the two bullets recovered from Mrs. Billings’ body were fired from a Springfield Armory nine-millimeter pistol that was found hidden in the springs under the cushion of the back seat of a vehicle owned by Long-Wiggins. Three other bullets and all ten bullet casings recovered at the residence were also fired from that nine-millimeter pistol. The safe taken from the Billings’ home was recovered unopened under a pile of bricks in the backyard of Long-Wiggins’ residence. Long-Wiggins’ fingerprints were found on a plastic bag covering the safe. Long-Wiggins and her husband, Hugh Wiggins, gave an AK-47 and two shotguns to Eddie Denson, a friend in Mississippi, who turned the weapons over to law enforcement. Denson also observed Hugh Wiggins toss a small handheld radio onto the side of the road, which was recovered by law enforcement the next day. Gonzalez’s DNA was found on the AK-47. Gonzalez was also included as a possible contributor of the DNA found on one of the shotguns. Gonzalez’s large red van was recovered behind Gonzalez, Sr.’s trailer. The van contained a package of trash bags, a canister of disinfectant wipes, some scouring pads, and two tires. Gonzalez’s fingerprint was recovered from the interi- or of the back passenger side window of the van. Dan Blocker, the owner of a tire and automotive business, testified that Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Sr., and Coldiron arrived at his business in Long-Wiggins’ red minivan on the day after the murders. Blocker had known Gonzalez for years through servicing vehicles for Gonzalez. On this day, Gonzalez was transporting two wheels in the minivan and asked Blocker to replace the tires on those two rims with another set of tires Gonzalez was also transporting in the minivan. Blocker thought the request was strange because the tires on the rims were better than the replacement tires Gonzalez provided. Gonzalez placed twenty dollars on the counter and told Blocker, “If anyone asks, you haven’t seen me.” The crime scene technicians had taken photographs of the tire tracks left by the invaders’ van in the grass at the Billings’ residence. However, there were no discernible tire tread patterns. Law enforcement obtained records for the phones used by Sumner and Gonzalez. An analysis showed forty-two contacts between them from July 2 through July 10, 2009. The records showed several phone calls being made from each phone on July 9, the day of the murders, but none during the time that the crimes took place or immediately thereafter. There was also a flurry of calls made from each phone between 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. on July 9. Testimony from Thornton and Florence established that the group, except for Col-diron, had attempted to take the safe from the Billings’ home five days earlier. However, the plan was abandoned after lights came on at the home when the men drove into the driveway. Gonzalez’s mother, Terri Poff, testified that in June or July 2009 Gonzalez was having financial difficulties and that she was helping him pay his bills. Poff had also purchased the large red van and given it to Gonzalez. Gonzalez’s wife, Tabatha Gonzalez, testified that she and Gonzalez ran a karate business that failed in 2009. She also testified that the couple was having financial difficulties. In July 2009, Tabatha and Gonzalez both worked at Long-Wiggins’ antique business. Gonzalez often drove a red minivan that belonged to Long-Wiggins. In June or July 2009, Gonzalez’s mother bought him a larger red van, but it was not in good working condition. Gonzalez left that van with his father Gonzalez, Sr., to perform mechanical work on it. Tabatha also testified that prior to July 2009, Gonzalez met with Mr. Billings to solicit funds for Gonzalez’s karate business. Mr. Billings made a $5,000 donation to the couple’s self-defense project, but refused to invest in the business because he thought it was a bad investment. She testified that on the night of July 4, 2009, Gonzalez was with her, their children, and neighbors, shooting off fireworks. Lonnie Smith and Tony Eisa both testified that Gonzalez had approached them in June or July 2009 about participating in a job or a robbery involving a safe and millions of dollars. Both men refused to participate. Carol Brant, the wife of Gonzalez, Sr., testified that she lived with Gonzalez, Sr., and that the defendant had met with Gonzalez, Sr., several times in the months before the crimes. Brant overheard Gonzalez talking about a robbery and a person who was dealing drugs. She also testified that Gonzalez came over on July 9, but she left shortly after he arrived. The sister of Gonzalez, Sr., testified that she lived near her brother and could see the front of his house from her home. On or about July 9, she saw Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Sr., and three or four other men arrive in three different vehicles. Gonzalez arrived in a red minivan, and the others were in an SUV. The defense elected not to present any evidence. During jury deliberations, the jury sent two questions to the judge, asking for a magnifying glass and for transcripts of all witness testimony. Over defense objection, the judge provided a magnifying glass to the jury. With the agreement of the parties, the judge instructed the jurors to rely on their recollections of the testimony. On October 28, 2010, the jury found Gonzalez guilty of first-degree murder in the deaths of the Billings and home invasion robbery with a firearm. The penalty phase proceedings commenced the same day the verdict was returned. The State presented three witnesses related to Gonzalez’s 1992 robbery conviction. Gonzalez limited his mitigation witnesses to his mother and his wife. Without objection, the trial court instructed the jury on the following statutory ag-gravators: prior violent felony, committed in the course of a robbery, committed for financial gain, and that the capital felony' was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC). Gonzalez requested that the court instruct the jury on the catch-all mitigator. The jury recommended death sentences for both murders by a vote of ten to two. The trial court conducted a Spencer hearing on December 9, 2010. The State submitted additional victim impact statements. Defense counsel announced that they were prepared to present a number of records (school, military, and psychological reports), but Gonzalez had instructed them not to do so. Gonzalez told the court that he did not want the records offered into evidence. Defense counsel' asked the court to take judicial notice of the fact that none of Gonzalez’s codefendants were facing the death penalty. Gonzalez testified by reading a prepared statement and a “closing statement” after being cross-examined by the State. In these statements, Gonzalez professed his innocence arid his shock that he had been convicted. Gonzalez’s aunt and wife also testified. On February 17, 2011, the trial court followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Gonzalez to death for both murders. The court found the following aggravating factors: prior violent felony conviction (based on the contemporaneous murders of the Billings and the 1992 robbery conviction); committed during the course of a robbery/pecuniary gain (merged); and HAC. The court rejected all of the statutory mitigators. The court also rejected the nonstatutory mitigator of disparate sentencing of Gonzalez’s codefen-dants, finding that the disparity in sentencing was due to Gonzalez being more culpable than his codefendants. The trial court found three nonstatutory mitigators: Gonzalez was a businessman who served the community and did volunteer service for which he had been commended (some weight); he is a devoted husband, a devoted father to his children, and a father to all children, as evidenced by his community service (little weight); and he came from a broken home, suffered from depression and attention disorder, and was addicted to prescription medicine (little weight). The court concluded that the “three sufficient aggravating circumstances” far outweighed the “insignificant and insufficient” mitigators and sentenced Gonzalez to death for both murders. Gonzalez received a life sentence for the armed home invasion robbery conviction, to run concurrently with the two death sentences. ANALYSIS On appeal, Gonzalez raises thirteen claims of error. We conclude that most of his claims are without merit. Issues 8 and 10 constitute error; however, as discussed below, we conclude that these errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We also find that Gonzalez’s convictions are supported by competent, substantial evidence. We address each claim in turn below. I. Improper Prosecutorial Comments During Guilt Phase Gonzalez claims that comments made by the prosecutor during the guilt phase opening and closing arguments were improper, thereby depriving Gonzalez of a fair trial. Defense counsel posed no objections to any of the prosecutor’s comments. Thus these claims were not properly preserved for appeal. See Bright v. State, 90 So.3d 249, 259 (Fla.) (explaining that to preserve a claim of improper comment, counsel must raise an appropriate objection at the time of the comment), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 300, 184 L.Ed.2d 177 (2012). However, if improper comments constitute fundamental error, they can be considered on appeal even though not preserved by objection. Merck v. State, 975 So.2d 1054, 1061 (Fla.2007); see also Bonifay v. State, 680 So.2d 413, 418 n. 9 (Fla.1996). Fundamental error is error that 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.” Spencer v. State, 842 So.2d 52, 74 (Fla.2003) (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)). A. Opening Statement Gonzalez cites five comments from the opening statement as improper: three in which the prosecutor told the jury that various witnesses had told the truth or would tell the truth at trial and two in which the prosecutor stated that Gonzalez “executed” Mr. Billings by shooting him in the back of the head. 1. Vouching for the Truthfulness of Witnesses The prosecutor made the following comments about the truthfulness of the witnesses during his opening statement: Gary [Sumner] had two young kids, Frederick Thornton and Rakeem Florence, that hung around his car cleaning-car detailing business. A[t] the time of the murders, Rakeem Florence was only 17 years old; Frederick Thornton was only 19.... ... They’ve confessed. They have told the truth. And they are going to testify here in this trial, and tell you in detail how this murder happened. Now, the proof will show that the defendant in the case was not the smartest person in the world. We’ve already established that he talked to Lonnie Smith and Tony Eisa about it. He talked to his daddy about it, told him they had a target with a safe with a lot of money. And while he was doing that, his father’s ex-wife, who still lived with his father was presen[t]; her name is Carol Brant. She heard them planning a robbery, and she will testify. And she has no involvement, no interest in the case, the proof will show, and her only interest is to tell the truth about the plan that this man and his father had to rob these people. Rakeem Florence’s mother got on him — he’s the one that’s 17 — and chastised him severely that night. And when she did, he told the truth. He confessed, and told what happened. The same night Frederick Thornton did the same thing as well. And you’ll be able to — the proof will show these young men are very credible and very remorseful. “It is improper to bolster a witness’ testimony by vouching for his or her credibility.” Gorby v. State, 680 So.2d 544, 547 (Fla.1993). “Improper bolstering occurs when the State places the prestige of the government behind the witness or indicates that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” Williamson v. State, 994 So.2d 1000, 1013 (Fla.2008) (quoting Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 953 (Fla.2004)). However, it is not improper for a prosecutor to make comments in opening statement that anticipate the defendant’s theory of the case. See, e.g., Bell v. State (Bell II), 965 So.2d 48, 56-57 (Fla.2007) (“Evidence that a witness has received a lighter sentence in exchange for his or her testimony goes to the bias of the witness.... The State addressed these matters ... in anticipation of trial counsel’s cross-examination of [the witness].” (citation omitted)); Occhicone v. State, 570 So.2d 902, 904 (Fla.1990) (finding no abuse of discretion in overruling defense objection where prosecutor made comments in opening statement in anticipation of insanity defense being used); Bell v. State, 491 So.2d 537, 538 (Fla.1986) (finding that the testimony from Bell II above “was offered to take the wind out of the sails of a defense attack on the witness’s credibility”). The State’s comments regarding Thornton and Florence did just that. The defense’s theory was that Gonzalez was not involved in the crimes at all and was set up by the other participants. The defense argued that Thornton and Florence had admitted their involvement in the crimes and would say anything the State wanted them to in order to get lighter sentences. The prosecutor’s remarks were a fair statement in anticipation of the defense’s theory of the case and, therefore, did not constitute vouching for the witnesses. Furthermore, the comments were brief and represent the type we have ordinarily characterized as proper. Wade v. State, 41 So.3d 857, 869 (Fla.2010) (finding comments about the witness’s motive and that witness “told the police the truth” to be proper as part of a “fair reply”); Branch v. State, 952 So.2d 470, 480 (Fla.2006) (finding no error in the trial court’s rejection of defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to prosecutor’s comments that witness “told the truth” and was “careful to tell you the truth”); Marshall v. State, 604 So.2d 799, 805 (Fla.1992) (rejecting defendant’s claim of vouching where prosecutor asserted during opening statements “that the State had overcome great obstacles in getting inmates to ‘truthfully tell what has occurred’ ”). Comments about Thornton and Florence confessing to the police were based on the facts the prosecutor expected to show and were not improper. As to the comment regarding Brant, it was proper to tell the jurors that she had no interest in the case and nothing to gain from her testimony as this argument did not place the prestige of the government behind the witness or indicate that information not presented to the jury supported the witness’s testimony. Furthermore, “[ojpening remarks are not evidence, and the purpose of opening argument is to outline what an attorney expects to be established by the evidence.” Occhicone, 570 So.2d at 904. Stating that “the proof [would] show” Brant had no ulterior motive was nothing more than a good faith attempt to outline what the prosecutor expected to prove. As such, this claim is meritless. 2. “Executed” Comments The prosecutor also made the following comments that Gonzalez “executed” Mr. Billings: Then Gonzalez, Jr., goes into the bedroom and continued to demand, to know where the money was. When [Mr.] Billings wouldn’t tell him — he told him he didn’t have any money, he shot him in the cheek. Then at the foot of his bed in his bedroom, he was shot behind the head twice and executed. ... I’ve already indicated, the proof will show that Bud Billings was shot in the legs twice, that he was then carried into his bedroom, that in his bedroom he was shot in the cheek first for telling— for failing to tell — for de[n]ying he had any money, and then he was shot— executed in the back of the head at the foot of his bed while his wife watched in horror. We have warned that use of the word “exterminate” or any similar term which tends to dehumanize or demonize a capital defendant is improper. See Bonifay, 680 So.2d at 418 n. 10. However, in Bonifay, we concluded that the prosecutor’s singular use of the word “exterminate” did not constitute harmful error. Id. at 418. We find that the prosecutor’s comments in this case were proper, as they were based on the fact that Mr. Billings was shot execution — style in the back of the head. The comments also are not the type of “egregious, inflammatory, and unfairly prejudicial” remarks that would require a new trial on the question of Gonzalez’s guilt. See, e.g., Urbin v. State, 714 So.2d 411, 419-22 (Fla.1998). B. Closing Argument Gonzalez cites three concerns with the prosecutor’s closing statement: impermissibly vouching for the credibility of two witnesses, stating facts not in evidence by telling the jury that Gonzalez was trained in karate and therefore capable of using both hands, and commenting on Gonzalez’s right to remain silent by disclosing to the jury Gonzalez’s statements to the detective who questioned him after the murders. “The proper exercise of closing argument is to review the evidence and to explicate those inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” Bertolotti v. State, 476 So.2d 130, 134 (Fla.1985). Attorneys are permitted wide latitude in closing argument, but that “latitude does not extend to permit improper argument.” Gore v. State, 719 So.2d 1197, 1200 (Fla.1998). “The control of comments is within the trial court’s discretion, and an appellate court will not interfere unless an abuse of such discretion is shown-Each case must be considered on its own merits, however, and within the circumstances surrounding the complained of remarks.” Bonifay, 680 So.2d at 418 (citations omitted) (quoting Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1, 8 (Fla.1982)). 1. Bolstering Witness Credibility During his initial closing argument, the prosecutor made the following comment about the two State witnesses who testified about Gonzalez’s involvement in the crimes: Again, remember, neither one of the codefendants, Mr. Florence or Mr. Thornton, if they wanted to make up a story, if their idea was to pin this on the defendant, wouldn’t you think they would sit there and say, oh, yeah, I saw him point the gun and shoot him, boom, boom, boom-[T]hey are 16- and 19-year-old men who are in the middle of a crime, who will be punished as they should be, but whose testimony is not the kind of testimony that appears fabricated because in essence it could have gone a lot further down the way if they wanted to please us, so to speak. Does everybody understand that? If they wanted to please us and come up with a story, they would have left nothing out there, but they didn’t. Gonzalez asserts that this comment constituted improper bolstering of the credibility of Florence and Thornton. However, as explained in the above analysis of the comments during the opening statement, this did not constitute improper vouching as the prosecutor did not “invoke his personal status as the government’s attorney ... as a basis for conviction of [the] criminal defendant.” Ruiz v. State, 743 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1999). Nor did the prosecutor indicate that information not presented to the jury supported the witnesses’ testimony. Additionally, “an attorney is allowed to argue reasonable inferences from the evidence and to argue credibility of witnesses or any other relevant issue so long as the argument is based on the evidence.” Miller v. State, 926 So.2d 1243, 1254-55 (Fla.2006). This argument was a fair comment after Gonzalez’s cross-examination of Thornton and Florence in which he highlighted their plea agreements with the State. Dailey v. State, 965 So.2d 38, 44 (Fla.2007) (holding that the prosecutor’s alleged improper vouching for a state witness was a fair comment in response to defense counsel’s attack on the witness’s credibility). During the cross-examinations of Thornton and Florence, defense counsel elicited that in return for pleading no contest to two counts of second-degree murder and one count of home invasion robbery, Thornton and Florence were obligated to testify against the other codefendants, including Gonzalez; that the two men were hoping to receive a sentence less than life in prison based on their cooperation, although no promises had been made; and that each of the men had originally lied to their families and to the police about the extent of their involvement in the crimes. Thus, it was proper for the prosecutor to argue that the witnesses’ plea agreements with the State should not cause the jury to reject their testimony as incredible. See Wade, 41 So.3d at 869 (concluding that prosecutor’s comments about the witness’s truth were proper rebuttal to defendant’s argument that witness was willing to he for, a lighter sentence and were not improper vouching). 2. Karate Training Comments During his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor argued about Gonzalez’s karate training: And, remember, he’s trained in quote, karate. He’s a karate person and there’s one thing they use both hands. Both hands are used in that situation, so it really doesn’t — it’s not a factor that should be considered because the testimony is clear in outlining him as the murderer. During the State’s case-in-chief, Gonzalez’s wife testified that Gonzalez was left-handed. She also testified that the couple owned a karate school and taught self-defense classes to women and children. During the closing argument, defense counsel argued that Gonzalez was not the shooter and emphasized that the video footage showed the Billings’ assailant holding the gun in his right hand. In response, the prosecutor argued that the video of the shooter holding the gun in his right hand did not mean that Gonzalez was not the shooter. The prosecutor noted that Gonzalez was trained in karate and, as such, could have been proficient using either hand. The prosecutor’s comments were properly based on facts in evidence. Further, the comments were in fair reply to the defense counsel’s argument. Accordingly, there is no error. Williamson, 994 So.2d at 1013. 3. Commenting on Right of Silence Also during the rebuttal argument, the prosecutor discussed Gonzalez’s interview with Deputy Bill Chavers: His own words are confirmation because his own words place him at Wal-Mart and when he places himself at Wal-Mart and Chavers asked him, Who are you with? I’m not going to say. I’m not going to tell you. When he says he sees something disturbing in the red van. What’s in there? I’m not going to tell you, I’m not going to say. When he talks about aspects of the crime, he shuts down and will not talk about it. Confirmation by his own words also come into play in this situation. Because his own words, I’m in deep, I’ll take the heat. This Court has said that “Commenting on the defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent is serious error.” Rimmer v. State, 825 So.2d 304, 322 (Fla.2002). “The test to be applied in such instances is whether the statement is fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.” Id. However, the prohibition against commenting on a defendant’s silence does not apply when the defendant does not invoke his Fifth Amendment right. Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 955 (Fla.2004), abrogated on other grounds by Deparvine v. State, 995 So.2d 351 (Fla.2008); Connor v. State, 979 So.2d 852, 860 (Fla.2007) (finding no comment on right of silence where detectives testified that defendant had answered some questions but failed to respond to more specific questions because defendant did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent). In the instant case, before Deputy Chav-ers questioned Gonzalez, he read Gonzalez his Miranda rights. Gonzalez did not invoke his right to remain silent and agreed to talk with Deputy Chavers. During his trial testimony, Deputy Chavers stated that Gonzalez admitted that he went to Wal-Mart with two friends on the day of the murders (as depicted on the Wal-Mart security video), but Gonzalez refused to identify them. Gonzalez also told Deputy Chavers that after the murders he received a frantic call from his father stating that Gonzalez, Sr., had to move the red van that Gonzalez had previously parked at his father’s house. Gonzalez stated he found his father cleaning out the red van in the rear of his yard, but would not tell the deputy what he saw in the van. The defense offered no objections to Deputy Chavers’ testimony or to the prosecutor’s closing argument quoted above. Because Gonzalez did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, his refusal to answer several questions during the police interrogation did not preclude the State from admitting the evidence of his refusal or commenting on it during closing argument. See Downs v. State, 801 So.2d 906, 911 (Fla.2001) (“[W]here a defendant refuses to answer one question out of many during a lengthy interrogation following the defendant’s waiver of his constitutional rights, the State is not precluded from subsequently admitting evidence of the defendant’s silence at trial.”). This claim is without merit. II. Magnifying Glass During Jury Deliberations Gonzalez claims that the trial court reversibly erred in allowing the jury to have a magnifying glass during jury deliberations after the jury requested one. The defense objected, arguing that the jury should take the evidence as presented to them. The judge did not inquire of the jury regarding the reason for the request. As a general rule, it is improper to allow materials into the jury’s deliberation room that have not been admitted into evidence if the materials are of such character as to influence the jury. See Smith v. State, 95 So.2d 525, 528 (Fla.1957) (holding that it was reversible error to permit the jury to use a dictionary while deliberating its verdict); Johnson v. State, 27 Fla. 245, 9 So. 208, 213 (1891) (finding reversible error when jury was allowed to have law books in deliberation room). However, it is not per se reversible error when any unauthorized materials are present in the jury room. Rather, where an objection is raised, Florida courts have applied a harmless error analysis. See State v. Hamilton, 574 So.2d 124, 129-30 (Fla.1991) (discussing the proper standard as harmless error); Keen v. State, 639 So.2d 597, 599 (Fla.1994) (stating that “[t]his Court adopted the harmless error test” to determine the effect of unauthorized materials in the jury room during deliberations). Gonzalez argues that because the magnifying glass was not in evidence and had not been used in the course of the trial to examine evidence, the jury’s use of the magnifying glass was erroneous. The State argues that evidence sent into the deliberation room today often requires the use of technology or equipment, not itself introduced into evidence, for the jury to meaningfully consider the evidence. The State points to the examples of a television, DVD player, or a VCR to view a surveillance tape, a CD player to listen to a defendant’s interview with the police, and rubber gloves to inspect evidence spattered with a victim’s blood. The State argues that nothing about a magnifying glass is of such a character as to influence the jury in reaching a verdict; instead it allows jurors to fully and fairly consider documents or items that were introduced into evidence. Only two Florida cases mention a jury’s request for a magnifying glass. See Kramer v. State, 882 So.2d 512, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that trial judge’s response to jury’s request for a magnifying glass without informing either the State or the defendant of request was outside the express notice requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410, but was harmless error); Jackson v. State, 832 So.2d 932, 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (stating, although not at issue, the fact that the jury asked for and was provided a magnifying glass, with no objection, to examine pictures of victim’s injury). Neither decision addresses whether it is proper for a jury to be provided with a magnifying glass during deliberations. However, a number of federal courts have concluded that providing a jury with a magnifying glass is not error. In United States v. Brewer, 783 F.2d 841 (9th Cir.1986), the defendant argued that the jury’s use of a magnifying glass, without court approval, to examine the photographic evidence required reversal of his conviction because the magnifying glass was not admitted into • evidence and was extrinsic evidence considered by the jury. Id. at 843. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the characterization of the magnifying glass as extrinsic evidence. Id. The court noted that there was no contention that the jurors considered the magnifying glass itself to have any bearing on the case. Id. In refusing to set aside the verdict, the Ninth Circuit stated that it was “unable to see how the use of the magnifying glass to view photographs differs from the use of corrective eyeglasses by jurors.” Id. See also Evans v. United States, 883 A.2d 146, 151-52 (D.C.2005) (finding no error because “the use of a magnifying glass by jurors for exhibits properly introduced at trial is within the trial court’s discretion”); United States v. Holmes, 30 Fed.Appx. 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2002) (rejecting claim that jury’s use of magnifying glass during deliberations was improper because “the mere making of a more critical examination of an exhibit than was made during the trial is not objectionable”); United States v. George, 56 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that no “new evidence” resulted from jurors’ use of magnifying glass to examine fingerprint cards and gun); United States v. Young, 814 F.2d 392, 396 (7th Cir.1987) (“[B]y providing the jury with a magnifying glass, the district court permitted the jury to make a more critical examination of the exhibits introduced at trial.”). We find these federal cases persuasive and conclude that the trial court did not err in providing a magnifying glass to the jury, upon its request, as a means for the jury to presumably make a more critical examination of the evidence. III. Trial Court’s Denial of the Jury’s Request for Transcripts In his supplemental brief, Gonzalez contends that he is entitled to a new trial based on the trial court’s denial of the jury’s request during deliberations for “transcripts of what the witnesses said.” The trial judge asked the parties for their responses to this request. The State responded that the judge should tell the jury that the transcripts were not available and they should rely on their memory and the evidence. Defense counsel agreed, stating that the “case law is clear that they have to rely upon what was heard during trial.” When the jury was brought back into the courtroom, the judge denied the request for transcripts and stated, “There will be no transcripts available to you. You will have to rely on your own recollections and memories of what the witnesses testified to.” Gonzalez now argues that the judge’s failure to inform the jury of the possibility of a read-back or instruct them to specify what transcripts were sought constitutes error based on our recent decision in Hazuri v. State, 91 So.3d 836 (Fla.2012). To overcome defense counsel’s failure to object or request such an instruction, Gonzalez asserts that the failure to so instruct the jurors constituted fundamental error. In Hazuri, we set forth several rules regarding transcript requests by the jury. First, a trial court cannot use any language that would mislead a jury into believing that read-backs are prohibited. Id. at 846. Second, when a jury requests trial transcripts, the trial judge should deny the request, but inform the jury of the possibility of a read-back. Id. Third, when a jury makes a general request for trial transcripts, it is incumbent on the trial judge to instruct the jury to specify the trial testimony sought to be reviewed so that the judge may properly exercise his or her discretion in granting, denying, or deferring any read-back requests. Id. In Hazuri, the judge responded to the jury’s request by informing the jury that it could not have the transcripts and each juror must rely on his or her own recollection of the evidence. Id. at 839. Defense counsel argued that the jury should be informed of the opportunity for a read-back, even though they were not able to receive trial transcripts of the trial. Id. Over the defense’s objection, the trial judge denied the request, did not inform the jury of the read-back option, and did not clarify which specific portion of testimony the jury was seeking to review. Id. at 847. We concluded that this was reversible error and that Hazuri was entitled to a new trial. Id. Although we decided Hazuri after Gonzalez’s trial occurred, he still receives the benefit of that decision because his case is not yet final. Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063, 1066 (Fla.1992) (“[A]ny decision of this Court announcing a new rule of law, or merely applying an established rule of law to a new or different factual situation, must be given retrospective application by the courts of this state in every case pending on direct review or not yet final.”); Wuornos v. State, 644 So.2d 1000, 1007 n. 4 (Fla.1994) (“We read Smith to mean that new points of law established by this Court shall be deemed retrospective with respect to all non-final cases unless this Court says otherwise.”). However, unlike defense counsel in Hazu-ri, Gonzalez’s defense counsel did not object to the judge’s instruction to the jury in this case. Smith, 598 So.2d at 1066 (“To benefit from the change in law, the defendant must have timely objected at trial if an objection was required to preserve the issue for appellate review.”). In fact, Gonzalez’s counsel expressed agreement with the way the transcript request was handled. Under the invited-érror doctrine, a party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal. Terry v. State, 668 So.2d 954, 962 (Fla.1996). Accordingly, Gonzalez is not permitted to take advantage of this invited error. Even if Gonzalez had not invited the error, the judge’s actions would not constitute fundamental error in this case. In Hendricks v. State, 34 So.3d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), the First District Court of Appeal found that, assuming error in the judge’s failure to inform the jury of a read-back, such error was not fundamental. Id. at 830-32. In that case, the jury requested to “see” the transcript of a specific portion of testimony. Id. at 821. In response, the judge stated, outside the presence of the jury, “I think the answer is no, rely on your memory.” Id. After no response from the attorneys regarding this statement, the judge instructed the jury accordingly. Id. The district court cited Farrow v. State, 573 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), for the principle that finding fundamental error under similar circumstances would encourage gamesmanship, as defense counsel may strategically choose not to object, await the outcome of the trial, and if unfavorable, secure a certain reversal on appeal because of the “ ‘fundamental’ error which the judge committed.” Hendricks, 34 So.3d at 831 (quoting Farrow, 573 So.2d at 163). Due to the possibility of this strategic gamesmanship, the First District declined to find fundamental error. Id. The scenario in the instant case is very similar to that in Hendricks. Thus, even if Gonzalez’s claim was not barred by the invited error doctrine, he still would not be able to show fundamental error and is therefore not entitled to relief. IV. Cumulative Effect of Guilt Phase Errors Gonzalez contends that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors during the guilt phase deprived him of a fundamentally fair trial and he is entitled to a new trial. However, we have repeatedly held that where the alleged errors, when viewed individually, are “either procedurally barred or without merit, the claim of cumulative error also necessarily fails.” Armstrong v. State, 73 So.3d 155, 174 (Fla.2011) (quoting Israel v. State, 985 So.2d 510, 520 (Fla. 2008)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2741, 183 L.Ed.2d 618 (2012). Because Gonzalez has failed to demonstrate a basis for relief on any of the above claims, we deny his claim of guilt phase cumulative error. V. Denial of Gonzalez’s Pretrial Motions Regarding Aggravators Gonzalez contends that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motions regarding aggravating circumstances. Gonzalez first filed a motion to compel the State to provide a bill of particulars as to the aggravating circumstances it would be relying on in the penalty phase of the trial, arguing that the indictment failed to sufficiently inform him of the particulars of the offense relevant to the imposition of the death penalty. He also filed a pretrial motion to require the State to elect which aggravators it intended to argue to the jury. In its response, the State cited our decision in State v. Bloom, 497 So.2d 2 (Fla.1986), in which we noted that “under Florida’s statutory scheme the [S]tate need not divulge before trial the specific statutory aggravating factors it intends to prove at a sentencing hearing.” Id. at 3. The State also cited Sireci v. State, 399 So.2d 964 (Fla.1981), in which we concluded that the State’s failure to notify the defendant prior to trial of the aggravating circumstances it intended to prove did not deny the defendant due process. Id. at 970. At a pretrial hearing, the court denied the motions under the authority of Bloom. Gonzalez claims that the trial judge erroneously believed that he was required to deny the defense motions based on Bloom. Gonzalez points to the failure of both the State and the trial court to recognize or cite our subsequent decision in State v. Steele, 921 So.2d 538 (Fla.2005), which held that a trial court does not depart from the essential requirements of law by requiring the State to provide pre-penalty phase notice of aggravating factors. Id. at 542-44. First, we note that Gonzalez himself also failed to bring our decision in Steele to the trial court’s attention. Second, there is no record evidence that the trial judge felt compelled by Bloom to rule in the manner he did. Third, Steele stands for the proposition that the trial court has discretion in determining whether the State should provide notice of the aggrava-tors it intends to prove. Id. at 542-43 (stating the question presented as “whether a judge may require such notice without violating a clearly established principle of law” (emphasis added)). “Whether to require the State to provide notice of alleged aggravators is within the trial court’s discretion.” Id. at 543. As such, the question presented here is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Gonzalez’s request for a bill of particulars as to the aggravating circumstances that the State intended to prove at trial. We have consistently held that because Florida’s death penalty statute “limits aggravating factors to those listed, ... there is no reason to require the state to notify defendants of the aggravating factors that the state intends to prove.” Hitchcock v. State, 413 So.2d 741, 746 (Fla.1982) (citation omitted); see also Kormondy v. State, 845 So.2d 41, 54 (Fla.2003); Lynch v. State, 841 So.2d 362, 378 (Fla.2003); Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705, 725 (Fla.2002); Vining v. State, 637 So.2d 921, 927 (Fla.1994). Furthermore, Gonzalez has not claimed that he was prejudiced in the preparation of his case by the aggravators offered. Accordingly, he cannot show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motions relating to disclosure of the aggravating circumstances. VI. Penalty Phase Testimony Regarding the 1992 Robbery Conviction Gonzalez asserts that the trial court improperly permitted the State to present evidence and testimony relating to a 1992 robbery during the penalty phase of trial because such testimony was irrelevant to the proceedings. Prior to the presentation of this evidence, the defense objected that the offense was too remote in time to be relevant to anything being considered during the penalty phase and the evidence should be excluded. The defense also objected that consideration of the robbery as an aggravating factor would constitute improper doubling of the robbery aggravator. The State responded that it was entitled to introduce evidence of all robberies the defendant had been convicted of as this would go to the weight to be accorded to that one aggravating factor. The court overruled the objections and permitted the testimony. The State introduced a copy of the judgment and sentence into evidence. The State also presented testimony from the victim of the robbery, who was a gas station clerk at the time. He testified that Gonzalez grabbed some packages of cigarettes and attempted to leave the store without paying for them. The victim approached Gonzalez and asked him to pay. Gonzalez then placed the victim in a head lock and dragged him out of the store into the parking lot. Gonzalez repeatedly struck the victim on the head, including two blows to his face. Gonzalez also yelled that he was going to kill the victim. The victim was able to get free when he struck Gonzalez in the groin. Gonzalez then ran across the street, started flexing his muscles, and “pumping himself up.” Fearing that Gonzalez would attack him again, the victim went into the store, locked the door, and called the police, who apprehended Gonzalez. During a penalty phase proceeding, the trial court has the discretion to admit evidence with regard to the details of a defendant’s previous conviction for a felony involving the use or threat of violence. See § 921.141(1), (5)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009); Miller v. State, 42 So.3d 204, 225 (Fla.2010). We review the admission or exclusion of such evidence for an abuse of discretion. Miller, 42 So.3d at 225; San Martin v. State, 717 So.2d 462, 470-71 (Fla.1998). “In determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion in admitting evidence of prior violent felony convictions, this Court looks at the tenor of the witnesses’ testimony and whether this testimony became a central feature of the penalty phase.” Franklin v. State, 965 So.2d 79, 96 (Fla.2007). Gonzalez argues that the trial court erred in admitting this testimony because the remoteness and the non-life-threatening nature of the 1992 robbery made the offense irrelevant to the consideration of the prior violent felony aggravator. However, we have held that “because the death penalty statute is silent as to the time or place of the previous conviction, even a conviction remote in time may properly be considered as aggravating.” Kelley v. Dugger, 597 So.2d 262, 264 (Fla.1992); see also Thompson v. State, 553 So.2d 153, 156 (Fla.1989) (concluding that a 1950 rape conviction established valid prior violent felony aggravating circumstance in sentencing for a 1982 murder); Rose v. State, 787 So.2d 786, 800-01 (Fla.2001) (finding prior violent felony based on a 1969 breaking and entering conviction in a 1998 re-sentencing). Gonzalez’s remoteness claim is without merit. Gonzalez is correct that the prior violent felony aggravator only attaches “to life-threatening crimes in which the perpetrator comes in direct contact with a human victim.” Mahn v. State, 714 So.2d 391, 399 (Fla.1998) (quoting Lewis v. State, 398 So.2d 432, 438 (Fla.1981)). However, “[w]hether a crime constitutes a prior violent felony is determined by the surrounding facts and circumstances of the prior crime.” Spann v. State, 857 So.2d 845, 855 (Fla.2003); Anderson v. State, 841 So.2d 390, 407 (Fla.2003); Rose, 787 So.2d at 800-01. Furthermore, when presenting evidence in support of the prior violent felony aggravating circumstance, “the State is not restricted to the bare admission of a conviction.” Miller, 42 So.3d at 225. Rather, the State may present any evidence that the trial court “deems relevant to the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant and shall include matters relating to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances enumerated in subsections (5) and (6)” of the statute. See § 921.141(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). “If a defendant was previously convicted of any violent felony, any evidence showing the use or threat of violence to a person during the commission of such felony would be relevant in a sentence proceeding.” Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242, 1255 (Fla.1988). As we have explained, “[tjestimony concerning the events which resulted in the conviction assists the jury in evaluating the character of the defendant and the circumstances of the crime so that the jury can make an informed recommendation as to the appropriate sentence.” Rhodes v. State, 547 So.2d 1201, 1204 (Fla.1989). Such testimony would also be relevant in determining what weight to give to the prior violent felony aggravator. Seibert v. State, 64 So.3d 67, 79 (Fla.2010). In Mahn, the defendant was merely the driver of a vehicle used after his friend snatched a woman’s purse in a parking lot. 714 So.2d at 394. Thus, the defendant’s prior robbery charge did not qualify as a prior violent felony. Id. at 399. Further, unlike in this case, the evidence there did not indicate that Mahn had exerted any force against the robbery victim. Id. at 394. We conclude that Gonzalez’s claim that the 1992 robbery was not a violent crime has no merit because Gonzalez physically attacked the victim, repeatedly struck him in the head and face while threatening to kill him, and engaged in further threatening behavior from across the street after the victim had escaped. The admitted testimony in this case was relevant to the proceeding. Gonzalez cannot show that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the 1992 robbery conviction-the admitted testimony did not become the central feature of the penalty phase, and the witnesses testified in a very matter-of-fact manner, without using emotional language. Franklin, 965 So.2d at 96. Nor was the robbery so remote in time or of such a non-life-threatening nature as to be irrelevant to the instant case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce the arrest report identifying Gonzalez as the assailant in the 1992 robbery, the testimony of the victim as to the details of the robbery, or any other testimony regarding the crime. Gonzalez also asserts that he was affirmatively misled by the State’s response to his death penalty motions. In its response to Gonzalez’s pretrial motion to declare the prior violent felony aggravator unconstitutional, the State represented that the aggravator did not apply to the facts of the case and would not be argued by the State. Gonzalez withdrew the motion based on the State’s response, and the prosecutor stated that he would advise defense counsel if the State’s intentions changed. Gonzalez’s claim on this point is also meritless. This evidence was being presented at the penalty phase. At that point, Gonzalez had already been convicted for the contemporaneous murders of the Billings. Under Florida law, such contemporaneous convictions can serve as an appropriate basis for the prior violent felony aggravator. See Pham v. State, 70 So.3d 485, 495 (Fla.2011); Mahn, 714 So.2d at 399. Therefore, regardless of the State’s assertions, Gonzalez was on notice that the aggravator could be offered in his case. Kormondy, 845 So.2d at 54 (finding that notice of the aggravating factors the State intends to argue is not required); Hitchcock, 413 So.2d at 746 (finding that Florida’s death penalty statute limits aggrava-tors to those listed in the statute such that “there is no reason to require the state to notify defendants of the aggravating factors that the state intends to prove”). Gonzalez’s claim that the trial court improperly allowed the State to admit evidence of his conviction for the 1992 robbery is without merit. VII. Improper Penalty Phase Closing Argument by Prosecutor Gonzalez contends that he is entitled to a new sentencing proceeding based on various comments that the prosecutor made during closing arguments in the penalty phase. The comments can be characterized as (1) reference to the victims’ children being present in the house; (2) creation of an “imaginary script” or “Golden Rule” argument; (3) mitigation referred to as aggravation; (4) “double murder” as an aggravating circumstance; (5) shot Mr. Billings “like a dog”; and (6) denigration of the role of the jury. Gonzalez only objected to the comment regarding mitigation. As such, most of these claims were not preserved for appeal. See Bright, 90 So.3d at 259 (explaining that in order to preserve a claim of improper comment, counsel must raise an appropriate objection at the time of the comment). The one comment that was preserved by an objection is reviewed for an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Merck, 975 So.2d at 1061 (“A trial court has discretion in controlling opening and closing statements, and its decisions will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.”). Unobjected-to comments are grounds for reversal only if they rise to the level of fundamental error. Id. To constitute fundamental error, “improper comments made in the closing arguments of a penalty phase must be so prejudicial as to taint the jury’s recommended sentence.” Thomas v. State, 748 So.2d 970, 985 n. 10 (Fla.1999). Each of the challenged comments will be discussed in turn below. A. Reference to Children Being Present Gonzalez claims that the prosecutor’s repeated mention of the children’s presence in the Billings’ home was not supported by the record and created a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance. Gonzalez posed no objections to these comments and must show that the comments constituted fundamental error to obtain relief. The challenged comments are quoted below: This wasn’t just any robbery, the man was there, his wife was there and nine children were scattered throughout the house. ... So that is an aggravating factor in terms of considering just how bad this robbery is. ... Mr. Billings and his wife and family were at home Thursday afternoon, had not gotten dark, but they were in the casual mode, kids were scattered around the house and as he’s relaxing in his home, ... Stallworth kicks the door in.... Mr. Billings has got shot two times in the leg, he’s obviously in severe pain, he knows the children are in the house running around, were running around all over the house. ... Let’s talk about Mrs. Billings.... She’s in the-and you have seen this in the video, she’s in the living room and she’s in the video when this man has her husband by the throat with a gun to his head and has shot him in the leg two times and has asked him where is the money, where is the money and then he says to her, [w]here is the bedroom? Now, while this is happening their children are all around. There are nine children in that house with special needs. She knew that. ... The evidence shows that Melanie Billings was terrorized in her home for several minutes before she was killed. It demonstrates, the evidence clearly shows, that in that home with her were nine of her children that had disabilities. At some point, at some point, Melanie B