Opinion ID: 3047018
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The definition of “machine gun”

Text: At the charge conference, Beckford’s counsel asked the court to define “machine gun” for the jury. The district court indicated that it would, but, in fact, never did. Beckford now argues that the district court erred in failing to give this instruction. As the government emphasizes, however, the parties agreed at trial that the gun in question was a machine gun. Both parties referred to the gun as machine gun throughout the trial, including in closing arguments. We need not address this issue because Beckford’s concession at trial that the gun was a machine gun constitutes invited error and precludes review of this issue. See United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting that the doctrine of invited error is implicated when a party induces or invites the district court into making an error).