invited response defense in Florida

5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2019 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Dufour v. Stategreen fla · 1986 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1991–1993 2 sentences 1993Dufour v. State, 495 So.2d 154, 160-61 (Fla. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1101 , 107 S.Ct. 1332 , 94 L.Ed.2d 183 (1987). 1991See Dufour v. State, 495 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1986).	2	2
State of Florida v. Damien C. Linggreen fladistctapp · 2017 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019State v. Ling, 212 So. 3d 530, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); see Bell v. State, 108 So. 3d 639, 649 (Fla. 2013) (explaining that even improper comment is saved if it is an invited response); 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 3 defense counsel concerning the same subject.”).	1	1
Bell v. Stategreen fla · 2013 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019State v. Ling, 212 So. 3d 530, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); see Bell v. State, 108 So. 3d 639, 649 (Fla. 2013) (explaining that even improper comment is saved if it is an invited response); 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 3 defense counsel concerning the same subject.”).	1	1
Walls v. Stategreen fla · 2006 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019State v. Ling, 212 So. 3d 530, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); see Bell v. State, 108 So. 3d 639, 649 (Fla. 2013) (explaining that even improper comment is saved if it is an invited response); 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 3 defense counsel concerning the same subject.”).	1	1
Rivera v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004As the State notes, in Rivera v. State, 840 So.2d 284, 286-87 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), this Court stated: “In order to determine whether improper remarks constitute reversible error, they should be reviewed within the context of the closing argument as a whole and considered cumulatively within the context of the entire record.” [quoting McArthur v. State, 801 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)] (citing Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla.2000); Cochran v. State, 711 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).	1	1
Austin v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003For instance, in Austin v. State, 700 So.2d 1233, 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), we determined the invited comment made by the prosecutor was a comment on other evidence introduced, not on the defendant's failure to testify.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Cochran v. State green fladistctapp · 1998 1 sentence 2004As the State notes, in Rivera v. State, 840 So.2d 284, 286-87 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), this Court stated: “In order to determine whether improper remarks constitute reversible error, they should be reviewed within the context of the closing argument as a whole and considered cumulatively within the context of the entire record.” [quoting McArthur v. State, 801 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)] (citing Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla.2000); Cochran v. State, 711 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).	1	2004–2004
McArthur v. State green fladistctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2004As the State notes, in Rivera v. State, 840 So.2d 284, 286-87 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), this Court stated: “In order to determine whether improper remarks constitute reversible error, they should be reviewed within the context of the closing argument as a whole and considered cumulatively within the context of the entire record.” [quoting McArthur v. State, 801 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)] (citing Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla.2000); Cochran v. State, 711 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).	1	2004–2004
Brooks v. State green fla · 2000 1 sentence 2004As the State notes, in Rivera v. State, 840 So.2d 284, 286-87 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), this Court stated: “In order to determine whether improper remarks constitute reversible error, they should be reviewed within the context of the closing argument as a whole and considered cumulatively within the context of the entire record.” [quoting McArthur v. State, 801 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)] (citing Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879 (Fla.2000); Cochran v. State, 711 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).	1	2004–2004
Rodriguez v. State green fla · 2000 1 sentence 2003Rodriguez noted that whether a comment on a failure to testify is permissible under the "invited response" exception should be narrowly interpreted. 753 So.2d at 39 .	1	2003–2003
Henkel v. United States green scotus · 1987 1 sentence 1993Dufour v. State, 495 So.2d 154, 160-61 (Fla. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1101 , 107 S.Ct. 1332 , 94 L.Ed.2d 183 (1987).	1	1993–1993

Where else courts name it

IL 21 (1976–2024) MI 7 (2003–2025) FL 5 (1991–2019) MD 4 (2010–2013) NM 3 (1993–2020) NE 2 (1988–2013) OH 2 (1986–1989) ND 2 (1999–1999) SC 2 (1999–2017)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check