denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2294, 164 L.Ed.2d 820 (2006). This Court’s precedent clearly prohibits lack of remorse as evidence of an aggravating factor. In Pope v. State, 441 So.2d 1073, 1078 (Fla.1983), this Court held that “lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor” and that “lack of remorse should have no place in the consideration of aggravating factors.” Additionally, in Atwater v. State, 626 So.2d 1325, 1828 (Fla.1993), this Court found that a trial court “erred in permitting the State on cross-examination to ask [the defense’s expert] whether persons with antisocial personality showed remorse.” However, this Court has permitted evidence of lack of remorse to rebut proposed mitigation, such as remorse and rehabilitation. See Singleton v. State, 783 So.2d 970, 978 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>); cf. Derrick v. State, 581 So.2d 31, 36
holding that lack of remorse is admissible to rebut evidence of remorse or other mitigation such as rehabilitation holding victims statements to coworkers admissible to rebut defendants claim that they had a good marriage holding victims statements admissible under state of mind exception to rebut defendants claim of accident andor suicide holding statements admissible to rebut defendants claims of selfdefense suicide or accidental death holding rehabilitation act applicable