preceding argument defense in Florida

2025“A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.” Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006).

2025“A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.” Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006).

2025See Scott v. State, 66 So. 3d 923, 930 (Fla. 2011) (“‘A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.’” (quoting Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006))).

2023It's why people have locks on their doors and keep guns for protection.”); Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006) (“A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.”); Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639, 642 (Fla. 1982) (finding no impropriety in prosecutor’s comment “made on rebuttal in response to the theory presented by the defense during its closing argument”); Scott v. State, 66 So. 3d 923, 930 (Fla. 2011) (holding prosecutor’s statements addressing defend

2025“Where defense counsel places an issue before the jury in closing argument, the prosecution is permitted to respond, and the defense may not be granted a new trial because the state rose to the bait.” State v. Ling, 212 So. 3d 530, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2018See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006) (“A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.”); State v. Ling, 212 So. 3d 530, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) 4 (“Where defense counsel places an issue before the jury in closing argument, the prosecution is permitted to respond, and the defense may not be granted a new trial because the state ‘rose to the bait.’”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Lot v. State, 13 So. 3d 1121, 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[T]he

2023It's why people have locks on their doors and keep guns for protection.”); Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006) (“A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.”); Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639, 642 (Fla. 1982) (finding no impropriety in prosecutor’s comment “made on rebuttal in response to the theory presented by the defense during its closing argument”); Scott v. State, 66 So. 3d 923, 930 (Fla. 2011) (holding prosecutor’s statements addressing defend

2017“A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.” Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006); see also Ferguson v. State, 417 So.2d 639, 642 (Fla. 1982) (finding no impropriety in “comment [ ] made on rebuttal in response to the theory presented by the defense during its closing argument”).

2006See Barwick v. State, 660 So.2d 685, 694 (Fla.1995); Dufour v. State, 495 So.2d 154, 160 (Fla.1986); see also Sorey v. State, 463 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim for failure to object to prosecutor's closing argument which constituted a fair response to defense counsel's comments).

2003Defendant's theory of defense was simply denial that he had committed the charged offense."). [2] See Freeman v. State, 717 So.2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). [3] See Hayes v. State, 660 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1995). [4] See Raupp. [5] See Keyes v. State, 804 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). [6] See Clewis v. State, 605 So.2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). [7] See Barwick v. State, 660 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1995); Dufour v. State, 495 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1986); State v. Mathis, 278 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla.1973) ("Here the challenged remark in closing argument of the prosecutor ... was really an `invited response' by the preced

2006See Barwick v. State, 660 So.2d 685, 694 (Fla.1995); Dufour v. State, 495 So.2d 154, 160 (Fla.1986); see also Sorey v. State, 463 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim for failure to object to prosecutor's closing argument which constituted a fair response to defense counsel's comments).

2003Defendant's theory of defense was simply denial that he had committed the charged offense."). [2] See Freeman v. State, 717 So.2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). [3] See Hayes v. State, 660 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1995). [4] See Raupp. [5] See Keyes v. State, 804 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). [6] See Clewis v. State, 605 So.2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). [7] See Barwick v. State, 660 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1995); Dufour v. State, 495 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1986); State v. Mathis, 278 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla.1973) ("Here the challenged remark in closing argument of the prosecutor ... was really an `invited response' by the preced

2022Thus, a comment standing alone may be viewed as inappropriate, but when considered within the context of the entire closing argument and the record, it may be a fair comment”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Brown v. State, 771 So. 2d 603, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding prosecutor’s comments were permissible as an invited response).

2022See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006) (“A prosecutor's comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject”); Noriega v. State, 228 So. 3d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (State’s comment in its rebuttal closing argument—that there was “zero evidence” to support defendant’s alternative theory of the case— was not an improper, burden-shifting argument where it was made in response to, and was invited by, the defense’s closing argument); Joyner v. State, 979 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA

2021See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006) (“A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.”) (citations omitted); Wimberly v. State, 41 So. 3d 298, 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Improper comments rise to the level of fundamental error only where the error reaches down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omit

2018See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006) (“A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.”); State v. Ling, 212 So. 3d 530, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) 4 (“Where defense counsel places an issue before the jury in closing argument, the prosecution is permitted to respond, and the defense may not be granted a new trial because the state ‘rose to the bait.’”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Lot v. State, 13 So. 3d 1121, 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[T]he

2018See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006) (“A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.”); State v. Ling, 212 So. 3d 530, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) 4 (“Where defense counsel places an issue before the jury in closing argument, the prosecution is permitted to respond, and the defense may not be granted a new trial because the state ‘rose to the bait.’”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Lot v. State, 13 So. 3d 1121, 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“[T]he

2017Where defense counsel places an issue before the jury in closing argument, the prosecution is permitted to respond, and “the defense may not be granted a new trial because the state ‘rose to the bait.’” Brown v. State, 367 So.2d 616, 625 (Fla. 1979).

2012See Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156, 1166 (Fla.2006) (“A prosecutor’s comments are not improper where they fall into the category of an ‘invited response’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject.”); McKenzie v. State, 830 So.2d 234, 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“[A] prosecutor’s comments [in closing argument] must be based on facts in evidence or fair inference from those facts.”).

2011Accordingly, under the “invited response” doctrine, the State is permitted “to emphasize uncontradicted evidence for the narrow purpose of rebutting a defense argument since the defense has invited the response.” Caballero v. State, 851 So.2d 655, 660 (Fla.2003).

2007See Mungin v. State, 932 So.2d 986, 997 (Fla.2006) (holding that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object because none of the comments were improper); Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156, 1166 (Fla.2006) (holding that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to comments that were proper responses to the preceding argument by the defense). 2.

2006See Barwick v. State, 660 So.2d 685, 694 (Fla.1995); Dufour v. State, 495 So.2d 154, 160 (Fla.1986); see also Sorey v. State, 463 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim for failure to object to prosecutor's closing argument which constituted a fair response to defense counsel's comments).

2003Defendant's theory of defense was simply denial that he had committed the charged offense."). [2] See Freeman v. State, 717 So.2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). [3] See Hayes v. State, 660 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1995). [4] See Raupp. [5] See Keyes v. State, 804 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). [6] See Clewis v. State, 605 So.2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). [7] See Barwick v. State, 660 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1995); Dufour v. State, 495 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1986); State v. Mathis, 278 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla.1973) ("Here the challenged remark in closing argument of the prosecutor ... was really an `invited response' by the preced

2003It was a fair reply not violative of the Rule and which we would approve in these circumstances."); State v. Compo, 651 So.2d 127, 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ("Fundamental notions of fairness required that the state be allowed to comment on the ... issues raised by the defendant.") (citation omitted). [1] The majority suggests that "the only contested issue in this case was the victim's identification of Rivera as the person who committed the burglary." Although that may be the issue about which the defense chose to argue most vehemently, nowhere in the record did Rivera stipulate that a burglary