context: This Court's precedent clearly prohibits lack of remorse as evidence of an aggravating factor. However, this Court has permitted evidence of lack of remorse to rebut proposed mitigation, such as remorse and rehabilitation.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 783 So.2d 970, 978
citation_a.parenthetical: holding "that lack of remorse is admissible to rebut evidence of remorse or other mitigation such as rehabilitation"
citation_a.sentence: See Singleton v. State, 783 So.2d 970, 978 (Fla.2001) (holding “that lack of remorse is admissible to rebut evidence of remorse or other mitigation such as rehabilitation”); cf. Derrick v. State, 581 So.2d 31, 36 (Fla.1991) (finding that although lack of remorse is permitted to rebut evidence of remorse or rehabilitation, the trial court erred in permitting the State to present evidence of lack of remorse before the defense presented any testimony).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 581 So.2d 31, 36
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that although lack of remorse is permitted to rebut evidence of remorse or rehabilitation, the trial court erred in permitting the State to present evidence of lack of remorse before the defense presented any testimony
citation_b.sentence: See Singleton v. State, 783 So.2d 970, 978 (Fla.2001) (holding “that lack of remorse is admissible to rebut evidence of remorse or other mitigation such as rehabilitation”); cf. Derrick v. State, 581 So.2d 31, 36 (Fla.1991) (finding that although lack of remorse is permitted to rebut evidence of remorse or rehabilitation, the trial court erred in permitting the State to present evidence of lack of remorse before the defense presented any testimony).