TROY ADAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Troy Adams was convicted of strong-arm robbery after a statement he made to police was admitted at trial, which inadvertently referenced another robbery investigation. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that Adams' defense counsel invited the error by refusing the prosecutor's offer to redact the problematic portion, thereby precluding any appellate challenge.
The appellate court rejected Adams' contentions, holding that he is precluded from claiming error on appeal because his defense counsel explicitly invited the error by refusing the prosecutor's offer to redact the problematic language. The court found no defect in the curative instruction itself.
[1] A party is precluded from claiming error that they explicitly invited.
[2] A curative instruction is not rendered ineffective simply because the defense declined to agree to a deletion of the offending statement.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Since the entire matter would have been obviated if the defense had agreed to delete the offending phrase, there can be no more classic example of the doctrine that one is precluded from claiming error which he has explicitly invited.”
Establishes the core holding that the defense counsel's refusal to accept the prosecutor's redaction offer constitutes invited error, precluding appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams was arrested and made a statement to investigating officers in which he said, 'I know you guys have been looking for me, but when that happened,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Invited Error Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Adams was convicted of strong arm robbery. At the trial, the investigating officer was prepared to testify that, when arrested, the defendant made the following statement: “I know you guys have been looking for me, but when that happened, I was in Broward Sheriff’s Department reference a strong armed robbery.”
While the prosecutor offered to delete the “Broward Sheriffs Department-robbery” portion of the admission and replace it with “somewhere else,” the Assistant Public Defender, Mr. Frost, declined to do so, apparently for the express purpose of attempting to secure a reversal on appeal. Accordingly, the statement was related to the jury just as Adams had given it. Notwithstanding that counsel also declined a curative instruction, the trial judge, as he was duty-bound to do, Coleman v. State, 420 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), commendably gave one anyway.1
The sole point on appeal complains about the curative instruction, contending (a) that it was ineffective to cure the harm created by the statement and (b) that it overemphasized the adverse portion of the statement itself and was otherwise improper. We summarily reject these arguments which are unworthy even of being presented to us. Since the entire matter would have been obviated if the defense had agreed to delete the offending phrase, there can be no more classic example of the doctrine that one is precluded from claiming error which he has explicitly invited.2 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 294 (1978); see State v. Belien, 379 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Affirmed.
. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, prior to our going to lunch, there was the testimony of the police officer on the stand, and the police officer testified that a statement had been made to him by the Defendant.
Now, as part of that statement, the Defendant was alleged to have said where he was at a certain time, and there was a mention made of a different police authority involved.
Now, what I would like you to do, if it’s at all possible — it is totally unimportant as to the other place or time that is referred to. That statement was only introduced and it will be up to you to determine what that statement— if it was ever made and what it means.
But, the fact that another police authority was mentioned in that statement — we can’t change statements; we can’t change them to suit ourselves or anything like that — that has nothing to do with the case, absolutely nothing to do with it.
In fact, I personally do not know of any other situation that could be brought to your attention about any other case, and I know a lot more about this case than you do.
So, please, if you possibly can, I would appreciate it if you could ignore the fact of what else was said other than that statement.
. We find no defect in the content of the curative instruction itself.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sundale Assocs., Ltd. v. Se. Bank, N.A., 471 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…mine. Any only-now-alleged error in this regard was therefore not only not preserved but was affirmatively invited and may therefore not be successfully presented in this court. Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); Adams v. State, 465 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); 3 Fla. Jur.2d Appellate Review § 294 (1978). Second, and in any case, the record amply supports the jury determination in this regard. Gilman v. Butzloff, 155 Fla. 888, 22 So. 2d 263 (1945); Rader v. Prather, 100 Fla. 591, 130 So…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 503 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…. With regard to the prosecutor’s allusion to facts not in evidence, the trial court cured the error by instructing the jury to disregard the comment as defense counsel had requested, see Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1982); Adams v. State, 465 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see also Rodriguez v. State, 493 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), and correctly denied defendant’s motion for mistrial. Under the circumstances of this case the error was harmless. See State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984); S…
Authorities Cited
- Weinstein v. Heyman, 379 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Thorndike v. State, 420 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)