RINAD KITAYGORODSKIY
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Erroneous admission of police officer identification testimony is harmless when eyewitnesses testified at trial identifying the defendant as the person who committed the crime.
[1] Erroneous admission of police officer identification testimony constitutes harmless error when eyewitness testimony at trial establishes the defendant's identity as the p…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Rinad Kitaygorodskiy was convicted based in part on police officer identification testimony of the defendant in a crime videotape.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Invited Response Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
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))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Caballero v. State, 851 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2003)
- Scott v. State, 66 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 2011)
- Steverson v. State, 712 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)