Opinion ID: 2814060
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury’s questions

Text: Third, Taylor asserts the district court misled the jury in its responses to a series of jury questions. We review a district court’s response to a jury question for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Wright, 392 F.3d 1269, 1279 (11th Cir. 2004). Where a party has agreed with a proposed answer to a jury’s question, however, that party may not then challenge that answer on appeal because “[i]t is a cardinal rule of appellate review that a party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party.” United States v. Fulford, 267 F.3d 1241, 1246-47 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted) (holding defense invited error 6 Case: 14-13990 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 Page: 7 of 11 regarding court’s response to a jury’s question by saying, “the instruction is acceptable to us”). The district court has considerable discretion in answering a jury question, so long as the answer does not misstate the law or confuse the jury. United States v. Lopez, 590 F.3d 1238, 1247-48 (11th Cir. 2009). Any such supplemental instruction is considered in light of the entire jury charge, and we will not reverse unless “left with a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” Id. at 1248 (quotation omitted). Taylor only makes a specific argument on appeal concerning the court’s response to one of the jury questions, specifically the one which asked the court to clarify the definition of “possession.” When the court presented its proposed answer, however, Taylor responded, “That sounds fine, Your Honor.” Under the doctrine of invited error, his agreement with the court’s answer foreclosed any challenge to that answer on appeal. See Fulford, 267 F.3d at 1246-47. He also agreed with the court’s proposed answer to the jury’s questions about what constituted knowing possession, and accordingly waived any challenge to the court’s responses. See id. Taylor did object to one sentence in the court’s answer regarding whether “possessed and possession” had the same meaning. He argues on appeal, without elaboration, that this answer misled the jury. The court’s answer, however, was addressing the jury’s question involving the past tense of “possess,” and so appears 7 Case: 14-13990 Date Filed: 07/02/2015 Page: 8 of 11 to have been designed to assist, rather than confuse the jury. In any event, the response was not a misstatement of the law, and did not impair the jury’s deliberations. See Lopez, 590 F.3d at 1247-48.