issues: (1) Did the trial court err by allowing the jury to view the defendant’s tattoos during jury deliberations? (2) Did the trial court err in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct? DISPLAY OF TATTOOS The issue of identification was central to this case. Prior to trial the defendant was ■placed in a photo line-up. Upon motion by defendant’s counsel, the court found this line-up to be unduly suggestive. However, following a Desserault hearing, Officer Lorenzano was allowed to make an in-court identification. Also, prior to trial, the state moved for an order requiring the defendant to pose for photographs to be used as exhibits. The trial court found this request proper, see State v. Rosthenhausler, 147 Ariz. 486, 711 P.2d 625 (1985) (<HOLDING>) and gave the defendant the option of either
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 holding that to grant a new trial the error must be more than harmless holding it was not error for trial court to grant states request that defendant roll up his sleeve to reveal a tattoo holding that it was not plain error for the court not to give a self defense jury instruction where the defendant did not request one holding that although akinss letters reveal that he was worried about his counsels preparation for trial the record does not show that his counsel was unprepared for trial