somebody gets hit or slapped, pushed or knocked down. This violence involves an individual, Mr. Hunter, coming home, a man appears on the street, wants to take his car or whatever or his life. And, proceeds to shoot at him fifteen times and hit him two times. He gets away, barely. Less than two hours after that, this particular offense occurs. I submit to you that we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has been convicted of an offense of violence prior to this particular offense. While it was proper to argue that Hunter’s testimony had proven the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor engaged in improper argument by implying that the jury should consider the nature of the violence against the victim in the Hunter offenses. Cf. id. at 812 (<HOLDING>). However, unlike Bigbee, the improper remarks
holding the prosecutors argument if it was there they can bring it to you was not an improper jury argument holding that a defendant bears the burden of objecting to an allegedly improper closing argument at the time the improper argument is made holding that argument regarding victim of prior offense was improper holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding that the prosecutors question to the defendant about a prior unrelated offense was improper