Court Opinion

ID: 9898965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 17:05:01.079767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:32.008798
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                      Opinion filed November 15, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1270
                      Lower Tribunal No. F21-13346
                          ________________

                          Rinad Kitaygorodskiy,
                                Appellant,

                                     vs.

                           The State of Florida,
                                Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue
Venzer, Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
     Affirmed. See Edwards v. State, 712 So. 2d 407, 408 (Fla. 5th DCA

1998) (concluding that the erroneous admission of a police officer’s

identification of the defendant in a crime videotape “was merely cumulative”

where eyewitnesses testified at trial that the defendant was the person who

committed the crime; thus, “any error resulting from the admission of the

identification testimony was harmless”); Scott v. State, 66 So. 3d 923, 930

(Fla. 2011) (“[U]nder 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.’” (quoting

Caballero v. State, 851 So. 2d 655, 660 (Fla. 2003))).

                                     2