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))).