you, because all you will get from the defense is tearing down. You will not get anything substantive, only inconsistencies ...” held inappropriate); Jackson v. State, 421 So.2d 15, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“The prosecutor’s personal attacks upon defense counsel during final argument — which reached their apogee (or nadir) when the jurors were asked whether they would buy a used car from him — were, as is now acknowledged by the State, utterly and grossly improper.”); Henry v. State, 743 So.2d 52, 53 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (labeling a defense the “most ridiculous defense” the prosecutor had ever heard held inappropriate); Izquierdo v. State, 724 So.2d 124, 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (calling the defense a “pathetic fantasy” was inappropriate); Rosso v. State, 505 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>). These cases demonstrate that appellate courts
holding that denigrating insanity defense was inappropriate holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge recognizing a settled insanity defense where use of intoxicants were deemed to produce insanity either permanent or intermittent at the time of the offense