claimed instructional error in Kentucky

2025“Because Appellant himself proposed the [] instruction, which was ultimately given, his right to appellate review of the claimed instructional error was relinquished.” Thornton v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 372, 377 (Ky. 12 2013).

2017The Commonwealth relies upon Thornton v. Commonwealth, 421 S.W.3d 372, 376-377 (Ky. 2013) (Under the “invited error” doctrine, “[b]ecause Appellant himself proposed the insanity instruction, Which was ultimately given, his right to appellate review of the claimed instructional error was relinquished.”).

2025Thus, if the instruction given by the trial court was erroneous, Dominic not only failed to preserve the error, he also invited the error by proposing an instruction that contained the same defect he complains of now. -9- In Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19, 38 (Ky. 2011), our Supreme Court recognized that “invited errors that amount to a waiver, i.e., invitations that reflect the party’s knowing relinquishment of a right, are not subject to appellate review.” As Dominic’s proposed instruction on Assault in the Fourth Degree was nearly identical to the instruction ultimately given, D

2025See id.

2019In Webster v. Commonwealth, we extended the holding in Thornton to include—under the umbrella of invited errors—“instructions that are substantially similar to those ultimately given by the trial judge.” 438 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Ky. 2014).