drugs as indicative of her straightforwardness as a witness. The prosecutor’s comments that Dingle was open, honest, and truthful were permissible because, in context, they were based on the evidence and in specific reference to her testimony. The prosecutor’s language — that Dingle was “open and honest” and “telling the truth” — echoed the language of the standard jury instruction the judge read to the jury, that, in deciding whether Dingle’s testimony was reliable, the jury should consider whether she was “honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys’ questions.” Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.9. On point is Yok v. State, 891 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In closing argument in a sexual battery case, the prosecutor stated “that the victim was ‘honest and straightforwar 02) (<HOLDING>). The testimony of Detectives Myers and
holding that expert testimony from a detective about the reluctance of witnesses residents of gang neighborhoods to testify in cases involving gang activity is relevant to the credibility of a witness holding appellate counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to appeal district courts decision to admit evidence that defendant was a member of a gang because gang membership was relevant to show motive and intent holding that active participation in a criminal street gang means that there is a relationship between the defendant and the gang that is more than nominal passive inactive or purely technical and that defendant must devote all or a substantial part of his time and efforts to the gang holding that an expert in the field of gangs and gang codes of behavior including the requirements of members obedience silence and staunch defense of other gang members and the punishment meted out to a gang member who violates these requirements could testify because these were factual matters outside the experience of the average juror holding that murder committed by minor gang members was not foreseeable result of sale of alcohol to gang members