LEO T. BELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
LEO T. BELL, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
758 So. 2d 1266
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
A defendant is not at liberty to complain about a prosecutor’s comments in closing argument when the comment is an invited response. See Parker v. State, 641 So. 2d 369 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1131, 115 S.Ct. 944, 130 L.Ed.2d 888 (1995).
AFFIRMED.
ANTOON, C.J., SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rivera v. State, 840 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…orthy of belief is nothing [*289] more than a restatement of Rivera’s defense and closing argument. “A defendant is not at liberty to complain about a prosecutor’s comments in closing argument when the comment is an invited response.” Bell v. State, 758 So. 2d 1266, 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing Parker v. State, 641 So. 2d 369 (Fla.1994)). Second, the error, if one is presumed, would be harmless based on the evidence and testimony presented during the trial, especially the prosecutor’s effective cross-exami…
Authorities Cited
- Parker v. State, 641 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1994)
- Nichols v. Oklahoma, 513 U.S. 1131 (U.S. 1995)
- DeGrijze v. Schwartz, 513 U.S. 1131 (U.S. 1995)