JULIUS BUGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Julius Buggs appealed his cocaine possession conviction, arguing that inadmissible testimony about marijuana found at the scene violated a prior in limine ruling and constituted improper reference to an unrelated crime. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that Buggs' defense counsel invited the error by asking open-ended questions that elicited the marijuana reference.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Buggs' defense counsel invited any error by asking open-ended questions about what the officer found and then requesting a detailed description of the gold envelope, making the officer's reference to marijuana clearly responsive to counsel's line of questioning.
[1] A party may not invite error at trial and then take advantage of that error on appeal.
[2] An invited error occurs when an objectionable answer is clearly responsive to the line of questions being asked.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A party may not make or invite error at trial, and then take advantage of the error on appeal.”
Establishes the invited error doctrine that bars appellants from benefiting from errors they caused
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice found eleven baggies of crack cocaine in a bag Buggs discarded during a pursuit. The same bag contained a gold envelope with two baggies of mar…
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
WENTWORTH, Senior Judge.
Julius Buggs has appealed from a conviction of possession of cocaine, alleging that he is entitled to a new trial based on the admission of testimony that marijuana was also found in his possession. We affirm.
Buggs was charged with possession of cocaine after police found eleven baggies of crack cocaine in a bag Buggs discarded during a pursuit. The paper bag also contained a gold envelope holding two baggies of marijuana, as to which no charges were filed. Prior to Buggs’ trial, the court granted a defense motion in limine barring testimony about the marijuana. During the trial, defense counsel cross-examined the arresting officer as follows:
DEFENSE COUNSEL: You do agree that you then went back to search that area?
OFFICER: Yes.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: And you did not find anything else?
OFFICER: Yes, I did.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: What did you find?
OFFICER: A gold envelope.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Describe the gold envelope.
OFFICER: It’s a small gold envelope that contained marijuana.
Defense counsel moved to strike the testimony as unresponsive. The court denied the motion, stating, “You asked him what he found. You asked the question. You got the answer.” Two defense witnesses later referred to the marijuana as well, indicating that Buggs had told them at the scene that he was under arrest for marijuana. The jury convicted Buggs as charged, and he received one year in county jail.
Buggs argues on appeal that the officer’s reference to the marijuana, quoted above, violated the order granting the motion in limine, and was an improper reference to an unrelated crime. However, a party may not make or invite error at trial, and then take advantage of the error on appeal. Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1990). A comment is not “invited” when it is unresponsive to the question so that counsel could not have anticipated the witness would respond with the objectionable comment. Czubak at 928. See also Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), aff'd. 380 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1976) (error is invited when the objectionable answer is clearly responsive to the line of questions being asked).
Here, during cross-examination of the arresting officer, defense counsel asked him what he found on a further search of the area. He responded simply, “A gold envelope.” Having elicited a relatively complete description of the object, defense counsel nevertheless went on to request the officer to “describe the gold envelope.” Only when this further description was sought did the officer mention the contents of the envelope. We find this answer clearly responsive to defense counsel’s line of questioning. Thus, any error was invited, and we affirm the conviction herein appealed.
BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State, 717 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…y preserve, and which he, himself, invited. See Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla.1983)(“A party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal”); Lentz v. State, 679 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Buggs v. State, 640 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). For the reasons stated above, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence. . Williams V. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (FIa.1959). . The state also re-argues the propriety of the trial court’s admission of the Williams rule evi…
-
Kendrick Taylor v. State, 695 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ellant’s argument on appeal that he did not consent to defense counsel’s strategy of admitting his guilt in the armed robbery charges. A party may not make or invite error at trial, and then take advantage of the error on appeal. See Buggs v. State, 640 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). As to appellant’s remaining points on appeal, we affirm without comment. AFFIRM IN PART; REVERSE IN PART AND REMAND FOR A NEW TRIAL. WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
-
Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 741 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…now invoked as a reason for a new trial. See Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla.1983) (“A party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal.”); Lentz v. State, 679 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Buggs v. State, 640 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In denying the motion for hew trial, moreover, the trial judge expressly found that admission of evidence of collateral sources had proven harmless, even if error. On appeal, Ms. [*538] Sheffield has demonstrated no reason to di…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1990)
- Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)