to “rush” the case to trial in order to keep this relevant (and possibly incriminating) evidence from being considered by the jury; and- 5. Suggested to the jury that these actions showed consciousness of Jennings’s own guilt; after all, why would Jennings “demand” that the case proceed to trial before the DNA test results were available, unless Jennings knew that those test results would implicate him? The trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. See Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 (Fla.2000) (reversing conviction where detective, during his testimony, suggested to jury he was aware of the existence of extra-record evidence, leading detective to conclude he had no doubt defendant was guilty); Ser-vis v. State, 855 So.2d 1190, 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>); D'Ambrosio v. State, 736 So.2d 44 (Fla. 5th
holding where record fails to establish whether and how appellant presented motion for new trial to the trial court it was not timely presented holding that it is improper for a prosecutor to assume the existence of prejudicial facts not in evidence holding that the trial court properly added a party defendant to conform to the evidence presented at the trial holding it is improper for prosecutor to suggest that evidence which was not presented at trial provides additional grounds for finding the defendant guilty holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant