CAMERON J. ROSE, 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.
Cameron Rose appealed his attempted burglary conviction, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after evidence of his probationary status was admitted despite a prior in limine order. The court affirmed, holding that Rose himself elicited the probationary status information through his own cross-examination questions, making any admission of the evidence invited error that he cannot exploit on appeal.
The trial court correctly found that Rose opened the door to the victim's testimony about his probationary status. Because Rose elicited the victim's statements through his own cross-examination questions and the victim's answers were responsive to those questions, any error in admitting the testimony was invited error that Rose cannot use on appeal.
[1] A party cannot invite error at trial and then seek to benefit from that error on appeal.
[2] When a defendant elicits testimony that violates a motion in limine, the defendant has invited the error.
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“'[A] party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal.'”
Establishes the fundamental principle of invited error doctrine that prevents a party from benefiting from error they themselves created
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRose, a self-represented defendant, was accused of attempting to break into the locked office of the Palms Hotel where he resided during a dispute wit…
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 Attempted Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
Cameron Rose appeals his conviction for attempted burglary. He raises three issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Rose argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after his status as a probationer was admitted into evidence, despite an order granting a motion in limine prohibiting admission of that evidence. We affirm.
Rose represented himself at trial. The victim owns the Palms Hotel, where Rose resided when a dispute over toiletry items ensued. The victim testified that Rose, while threatening to kill him, attempted to break into the hotel’s locked office. Rose broke the office door’s glass pane; his hand was bleeding as a result, and his blood was recovered from the office door. There was conflicting testimony on whether he reached through the door, attempting to unlock it.
*998The State did not introduce evidence regarding Rose’s probationary status at trial. Rather, Rose elicited this information from the victim on cross-examination. Rose asked the victim how many times he had stayed at the hotel, and the victim stated that Rose was first placed at the hotel by a probation office, which assisted Rose with rent payments. Rose did not object or move for a mistrial at that point. Instead, he followed up with a series of questions, confirming that the probation office paid for his initial stay. Notably, in the questions Rose posed, he himself mentioned his probationary status several times.,None of the disputed testimony related to whether Rose committed the burglary.1
The trial court correctly found that Rose opened the door to the victim’s testimony about his probationary status. Because Rose elicited the victim’s statements about the arrangement with the probation office, and the victim’s answers were responsive to- the questions Rose asked, any error in the admission of this testimony was invited. “‘[A] party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal.’” Morgan v. State, 146 So.3d 508, 512-13 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (quoting Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So.2d 197, 202-03 (Fla. 2001)); see, e.g., Buggs v. State, 640 So.2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (finding defense counsel’s question on cross-examination that elicited information subject to order on motion in limine was invited error because answer was responsive to question counsel posed).
AFFIRMED.
WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sheffield v. Superior Ins. Co., 800 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2001)
- Morgan v. State, 146 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Thomas Knight and the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 640 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Buggs v. State, 640 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)