STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,

v.

THOMAS EDMONDSON, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1990)
  …r the invited-error doctrine, a party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal. See Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 1983); Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 317 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1975), aff'd, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976); Ellison v. State, 349 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1978). We find that Schultz’s comment was not “invited” because it was unresponsive to defense counsel’s question. S…
• Norton v. State, 709 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1997)
  …llant would know the answer, defense counsel invited the witness’ response. Appellant may not now complain on appeal of an error that he himself induced at trial. Terry; Czubak; Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 317 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1975). Next, appellant argues that the State twice attempted to elicit hearsay evidence during its ease in chief, thereby undermining his ability to provide a defense. First, appellant claims that the State improvidently asked during its redir…
• Tacoronte v. State, 419 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
  …tionable testimony was clearly responsive to the line of questions being asked, and was elicited by defense counsel on cross-examination, it does not constitute reversible error. See Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 317 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1975). Second, whether the prosecutor’s question to one of the jurors during voir dire regarding the victim’s children is improper, depends, again, upon the full context in which it was made. Here, the context of the challenged statement relat…

Authorities Cited

• Edmondson v. State, 304 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)