not consider testimony that is not properly before them as evidence. Furthermore, the improper testimo s improper questions, especially given the complete lack of relevance of the questions to the appropriate subject of the rebuttal examination. However, the questions were short, and were not overly suggestive of wrongdoing in and of themselves. In the context of the entire trial, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Turbe’s motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s improper questions. 2. Sergeant DeGraff’s Testimony Sergeant DeGraff’s testimony, like the questions that provoked it, was improper and inadmissible. It exceeded the scope of proper rebuttal testimony, as Turbe never said anything about the prior search of his home. See Forsythe, 594 F.2d at 947 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Sergeant Degraff’s testimony
holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes holding that evidence of uncharged crimes was improper on rebuttal since none of the defendants made any general denial of wrongdoing which might have justified rebuttal in the form of evidence of uncharged crimes holding that evidence of uncharged crimes was improper on rebuttal because the defendant did not make any general denials of wrongdoing holding that sentencing court is permitted to consider evidence of both uncharged acts and evidence underlying counts on which the defendant has been acquitted holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with