of the trial and does not necessarily result in a mistrial. See Fletcher v. State, 168 So.3d 186, 207 (Fla. 2015), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 980, 194 L.Ed.2d 7 (2016). When determining whether such a remark vitiated the defendant’s right to a fair trial, reviewing courts have often considered whether the fact of a prior conviction or incarceration was critical to any facts at issue during the trial. Compare Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705, 713-14 (Fla. 2002) (finding no abuse of discretion by trial court’s denial of motion for mistrial after witness stated that the defendant already had two sentences of life imprisonment because the jury was aware that the defendant was incarcerated at the time of the events in question) with Brooks v. State, 868 So.2d 643, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); and Henderson v. State, 789 So.2d 1016,
holding that witnesss suggestion that the defendant went back to prison was harmful in part because it affected the defenses theory of selfdefense which would have been undermined in light of evidence of a prior conviction holding that the admission of a family photo was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the conviction holding the fourth element asks if but for the defendants actions the plaintiff would have been in a less harmful position holding that corroborative evidence of prior specific acts of violence by victim may be admissible in selfdefense case where the defendant knew of the act holding that the erroneous omission of a selfdefense instruction was harmful in part because the jury sentenced the murder defendant to twelve years imprisonmentindicating a belief that the murder defendant was not significantly blameworthy