VELEZ v. STATE (2022)

Affirmed. See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006) (a prosecutor's comments in closing are not improper where they fall into the category of an “invited response” to defense counsel's comments); Page v. State, 335 So. 3d 810 (Fla 3d DCA 2022); McKenney v. State, 967 So. 2d 951, 954-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (defense counsel emphasized during trial that, although as many as fifty people were at the location of the shooting, the State presented the testimony of only one eyewitness; in closing argument, defense continued to emphasize this issue, and concluded by asking the jury “why haven't other eyewitnesses come forward?”; in rebuttal, the prosecutor stated that “anyone with one ounce of common sense, can figure out that when a person is capable of gunning down an unarmed man in front of a bunch of people, not just with a little handgun, mind you, but with an assault rifle, who the heck is going to get involved in that kind of mess?”; this court affirmed, holding that “the prosecutor responded fairly to the defense's question by discussing the inference, a matter of common sense, that the horrific crime scene and 30-plus rounds of assault rifle fire would not encourage a bystander to step forward.”)

PER CURIAM.