invited error in Virginia

2023See King v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 576, 582 (2002) (holding the invited-error doctrine inapplicable when, “as here, the record shows that a party clearly objected to a specific ruling of the trial court to which error is assigned on appeal”). - 11 - theirs.11 They liken themselves to tenants in common, arguing that an ousted co-tenant may be “entitled to a ratable share of the fair rental value of the property.” Daly v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 270, 274 (2007).

2016We conclude that appellant timely made her objection known to the trial court by her motion to set aside the verdict and that the motion preserved appellant’s contention for consideration on appeal. -9- “While the doctrine of invited error remains good law, it simply has no application where, as here, the record shows that a party clearly objected to a specific ruling of the trial court to which error is assigned on appeal . . . .” King v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 576, 582 , 570 S.E.2d 863, 866 (2002).

2023Under the invited error doctrine, “[w]e will not ‘notice error which has been invited by the [appellant].’” Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 525 (2005) (quoting Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400 (1970)).

2016In light of the grounds of our disposition of this case, it is unnecessary to determine whether Grant’s appeal is barred under the invited error doctrine. -4- objectionable words were spoken.’” Id. (quoting Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 774 , 232 S.E.2d 778, 781 (1977)).

2020The invited error doctrine precludes a litigant from “approbating and reprobating” – that is “invit[ing] error, as the [litigant] … did here, and then [attempting to take] advantage of the situation created by his own wrong.” Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 (2003).

2018See id. at 502-03, 675 S.E.2d at 165 ; Hansen v. Stanley Martin Cos., 266 Va. 345, 358 , 585 S.E.2d 567, 575 (2003); see also Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 , 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003) (applying the invited error doctrine because the defendant agreed to the appealed ruling).

2023However, this Court has recognized an exception to the procedural bar imposed by the invited error doctrine when the error caused the trial court “to impose a void sentence in excess of the applicable statutory maximum.” Alford v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 706 , 710 n.3 (2010) (quoting Batts v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 1, 11 (1999)); see also Burrell v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 474 , 481 (2012) (holding that the doctrine of invited error does not preclude a challenge to a sentence that is void ab initio); Rawls v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 213 , 221 (2009) (holding that a sentence exceeding “a presc

2018See Alford, 56 Va. App. at 709 n.3, 696 S.E.2d at 268 n.3 (listing the exceptions to the procedural bar imposed by the invited error doctrine: (1) “when the error caused the trial court to go beyond its subject matter jurisdiction” and (2) when a trial court “impose[s] a void sentence in excess of the applicable statutory maximum”). - 14 - However, factually, this case is not one where a new exception must be carved out.

2018Alternatively, the invited error doctrine allows an appellate court to consider errors of law as waived when a party “attempts to take advantage of the situation created by his own wrong.” 5 Virginia’s jurisprudence on this issue remains fluid – in October 2016, this Court split 6-5 in Dufresne v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 644 , 791 S.E.2d 335 (2016) (en banc), and our Supreme Court has granted certiorari, 2017 Va. LEXIS 88 (Va. June 8, 2017).

2018Alternatively, the invited error doctrine allows an appellate court to consider errors of law as waived when a party “attempts to take advantage of the situation created by his own wrong.” 5 Virginia’s jurisprudence on this issue remains fluid – in October 2016, this Court split 6-5 in Dufresne v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 644 , 791 S.E.2d 335 (2016) (en banc), and our Supreme Court has granted certiorari, 2017 Va. LEXIS 88 (Va. June 8, 2017).

2025A remark by a prosecutor that might otherwise be improper “may become proper under the invited error doctrine when the area has been opened to fair comment by the -7- argument and comment of defense counsel.” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 48, 51 (1988) (quoting Lincoln v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 370, 373 (1976)).

2014The Supreme Court held in relevant part that “[i]nsofar as the prosecutor’s comments arguably could be characterized as a reference to [defendant]’s failure to take the witness stand, we will apply the invited error doctrine . . . .” Id. at 52 , 372 S.E.2d at 137 . “[A] remark by a prosecutor, otherwise improper, ‘may become proper under the invited error doctrine when the area has been opened to fair comment by the argument and comment of defense counsel or of a pro se defendant.’” Id. at 51 , 372 S.E.2d at 136 (quoting Lincoln v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 370, 373 , 228 S.E.2d 688, 690 (1976)).

2018Moore v. Hinkle, 259 Va. 479, 491 , 527 S.E.2d 419, 426 (2000); see also Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400 , 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970); Clark v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 787, 791 , 120 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1961); Hundley v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 449, 454 , 69 S.E.2d 336, 339 (1952).

2018Moore v. Hinkle, 259 Va. 479, 491 , 527 S.E.2d 419, 426 (2000); see also Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400 , 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970); Clark v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 787, 791 , 120 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1961); Hundley v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 449, 454 , 69 S.E.2d 336, 339 (1952).

2018See, e.g., Matthews v. Matthews, 277 Va. 522 , 675 S.E.2d 157 (2009); see also Alford v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 706 , 696 S.E.2d 266 (2010).

2018See, e.g., Matthews v. Matthews, 277 Va. 522 , 675 S.E.2d 157 (2009); see also Alford v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 706 , 696 S.E.2d 266 (2010).

2018Co., 271 Va. 171 , 181, 623 S.E.2d 889 , 895 (2006) (citing Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 144 , 590 S.E.2d 537, 560 (2004); Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 , 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003); Smith v. Settle, 254 Va. 348, 354 , 492 S.E.2d 427, 431 (1997); Leech v. Beasley, 203 Va. 955, 961-62 , 128 S.E.2d 293, 297-98 (1962)).

2018Co., 271 Va. 171 , 181, 623 S.E.2d 889 , 895 (2006) (citing Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 144 , 590 S.E.2d 537, 560 (2004); Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 , 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003); Smith v. Settle, 254 Va. 348, 354 , 492 S.E.2d 427, 431 (1997); Leech v. Beasley, 203 Va. 955, 961-62 , 128 S.E.2d 293, 297-98 (1962)).

2018Co., 271 Va. 171 , 181, 623 S.E.2d 889 , 895 (2006) (citing Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 144 , 590 S.E.2d 537, 560 (2004); Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 , 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003); Smith v. Settle, 254 Va. 348, 354 , 492 S.E.2d 427, 431 (1997); Leech v. Beasley, 203 Va. 955, 961-62 , 128 S.E.2d 293, 297-98 (1962)).

2018Co., 271 Va. 171 , 181, 623 S.E.2d 889 , 895 (2006) (citing Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 144 , 590 S.E.2d 537, 560 (2004); Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 , 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003); Smith v. Settle, 254 Va. 348, 354 , 492 S.E.2d 427, 431 (1997); Leech v. Beasley, 203 Va. 955, 961-62 , 128 S.E.2d 293, 297-98 (1962)).

2018Moore v. Hinkle, 259 Va. 479, 491 , 527 S.E.2d 419, 426 (2000); see also Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400 , 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970); Clark v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 787, 791 , 120 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1961); Hundley v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 449, 454 , 69 S.E.2d 336, 339 (1952).

2018Moore v. Hinkle, 259 Va. 479, 491 , 527 S.E.2d 419, 426 (2000); see also Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400 , 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970); Clark v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 787, 791 , 120 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1961); Hundley v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 449, 454 , 69 S.E.2d 336, 339 (1952).

2018Moore v. Hinkle, 259 Va. 479, 491 , 527 S.E.2d 419, 426 (2000); see also Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400 , 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970); Clark v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 787, 791 , 120 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1961); Hundley v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 449, 454 , 69 S.E.2d 336, 339 (1952).

2018Moore v. Hinkle, 259 Va. 479, 491 , 527 S.E.2d 419, 426 (2000); see also Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400 , 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970); Clark v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 787, 791 , 120 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1961); Hundley v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 449, 454 , 69 S.E.2d 336, 339 (1952).

2018Co., 271 Va. 171 , 181, 623 S.E.2d 889 , 895 (2006) (citing Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 144 , 590 S.E.2d 537, 560 (2004); Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 , 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003); Smith v. Settle, 254 Va. 348, 354 , 492 S.E.2d 427, 431 (1997); Leech v. Beasley, 203 Va. 955, 961-62 , 128 S.E.2d 293, 297-98 (1962)).

2018Co., 271 Va. 171 , 181, 623 S.E.2d 889 , 895 (2006) (citing Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 144 , 590 S.E.2d 537, 560 (2004); Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 , 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003); Smith v. Settle, 254 Va. 348, 354 , 492 S.E.2d 427, 431 (1997); Leech v. Beasley, 203 Va. 955, 961-62 , 128 S.E.2d 293, 297-98 (1962)).

2022Co., L.L.C., 271 Va. 171, 181 (2006))); Rowe v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 495, 501-02 (2009) (declining to reach the merits of an assignment of error “because [the appellant] invited the very error of which he now complains”). 4 Accordingly, we do not consider the sufficiency of the evidence of the remaining elements of the offenses.

2020The invited error doctrine allows an appellate court to consider errors of law as waived when a party “attempt[s] to take advantage of the situation created by his own wrong.” Cangiano, 271 Va. at 181.

2023However, this Court has recognized an exception to the procedural bar imposed by the invited error doctrine when the error caused the trial court “to impose a void sentence in excess of the applicable statutory maximum.” Alford v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 706 , 710 n.3 (2010) (quoting Batts v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 1, 11 (1999)); see also Burrell v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 474 , 481 (2012) (holding that the doctrine of invited error does not preclude a challenge to a sentence that is void ab initio); Rawls v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 213 , 221 (2009) (holding that a sentence exceeding “a presc

2010Though it is unnecessary to catalogue them all, we acknowledge exceptions exist even to the procedural bar imposed by the invited error doctrine—like, for example, when the error caused the trial court to go beyond its subject matter jurisdiction, Bazemore v. Commonwealth, 42 Va.App. 203, 219-20 , 590 S.E.2d 602, 610 (2004) (citing Nelson v. Warden, 262 Va. 276 , 281, 552 S.E.2d 73 , 75 (2001)), or to impose a void sentence in excess of the applicable statutory maximum, Batts v. Commonwealth, 30 Va.App. 1, 11 , 515 S.E.2d 307, 312 (1999).

2022Co., L.L.C., 271 Va. 171, 181 (2006))); Rowe v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 495, 501-02 (2009) (declining to reach the merits of an assignment of error “because [the appellant] invited the very error of which he now complains”). 4 Accordingly, we do not consider the sufficiency of the evidence of the remaining elements of the offenses.

2018See id. at 502-03, 675 S.E.2d at 165 ; Hansen v. Stanley Martin Cos., 266 Va. 345, 358 , 585 S.E.2d 567, 575 (2003); see also Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 , 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003) (applying the invited error doctrine because the defendant agreed to the appealed ruling).

2025Although “the prosecutor may not treat a defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent at trial as substantive evidence of guilt,” that principle does not “forbid the prosecutor from fairly responding to an argument of the defendant by adverting to that silence.” Id. at 52 (quoting United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 34 (1988)).

2014The Court noted that “It is one thing to hold . . . , that the prosecutor may not treat a defendant’s exercise of his right to remain silent at trial as substantive evidence of guilt; it is quite another to urge, as defendant does here, that the same reasoning would forbid the prosecutor from fairly responding to an argument of the defendant by adverting to that silence.” Id. at 52, 372 S.E.2d at 136 (quoting United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 34 (1988)).

2002See, e.g., Wright v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 245 Va. 160, 170 , 427 S.E.2d 724, 729 (1993) (distinguishing Spitzli).

2002See, e.g., Wright v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 245 Va. 160, 170 , 427 S.E.2d 724, 729 (1993) (distinguishing Spitzli).

2025A remark by a prosecutor that might otherwise be improper “may become proper under the invited error doctrine when the area has been opened to fair comment by the -7- argument and comment of defense counsel.” Johnson v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 48, 51 (1988) (quoting Lincoln v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 370, 373 (1976)).

2004An argument or comment "by a prosecutor, otherwise improper, may become proper under the invited error doctrine when the area has been opened to fair comment by the argument and comment of defense counsel or of a pro se defendant.” Johnson, 236 Va. at 51 , 372 S.E.2d at 136 .

2016Over 100 years ago, our Supreme Court stated that a party is “estopped” because “[a] party who invites error will not be heard to complain of having misled the court.” Phillip Levy & Co. v. Davis, 115 Va. 814, 820 , 80 S.E. 791, 793 (1914) (emphasis added).

2016Over 100 years ago, our Supreme Court stated that a party is “estopped” because “[a] party who invites error will not be heard to complain of having misled the court.” Phillip Levy & Co. v. Davis, 115 Va. 814, 820 , 80 S.E. 791, 793 (1914) (emphasis added).

2023“The principle is long standing in Virginia that an appellate court will not ‘notice error which has been invited by the party seeking to take advantage thereof on appeal.’” McBride v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 526, 529 (2004) (quoting Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400 (1970)).

2023However, this Court has recognized an exception to the procedural bar imposed by the invited error doctrine when the error caused the trial court “to impose a void sentence in excess of the applicable statutory maximum.” Alford v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 706 , 710 n.3 (2010) (quoting Batts v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 1, 11 (1999)); see also Burrell v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 474 , 481 (2012) (holding that the doctrine of invited error does not preclude a challenge to a sentence that is void ab initio); Rawls v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 213 , 221 (2009) (holding that a sentence exceeding “a presc

2023However, this Court has recognized an exception to the procedural bar imposed by the invited error doctrine when the error caused the trial court “to impose a void sentence in excess of the applicable statutory maximum.” Alford v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. App. 706 , 710 n.3 (2010) (quoting Batts v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 1, 11 (1999)); see also Burrell v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 474 , 481 (2012) (holding that the doctrine of invited error does not preclude a challenge to a sentence that is void ab initio); Rawls v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 213 , 221 (2009) (holding that a sentence exceeding “a presc

2023See King v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 576, 582 (2002) (holding the invited-error doctrine inapplicable when, “as here, the record shows that a party clearly objected to a specific ruling of the trial court to which error is assigned on appeal”). - 11 - theirs.11 They liken themselves to tenants in common, arguing that an ousted co-tenant may be “entitled to a ratable share of the fair rental value of the property.” Daly v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 270, 274 (2007).

2023See King v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 576, 582 (2002) (holding the invited-error doctrine inapplicable when, “as here, the record shows that a party clearly objected to a specific ruling of the trial court to which error is assigned on appeal”). - 11 - theirs.11 They liken themselves to tenants in common, arguing that an ousted co-tenant may be “entitled to a ratable share of the fair rental value of the property.” Daly v. Shepherd, 274 Va. 270, 274 (2007).

2023Under the invited error doctrine, “[w]e will not ‘notice error which has been invited by the [appellant].’” Muhammad v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 451, 525 (2005) (quoting Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400 (1970)).

2018See id. at 502-03, 675 S.E.2d at 165 ; Hansen v. Stanley Martin Cos., 266 Va. 345, 358 , 585 S.E.2d 567, 575 (2003); see also Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 , 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003) (applying the invited error doctrine because the defendant agreed to the appealed ruling).

2018See id. at 502-03, 675 S.E.2d at 165 ; Hansen v. Stanley Martin Cos., 266 Va. 345, 358 , 585 S.E.2d 567, 575 (2003); see also Cohn v. Knowledge Connections, Inc., 266 Va. 362, 367 , 585 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2003) (applying the invited error doctrine because the defendant agreed to the appealed ruling).

2016See also Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 416 , 374 S.E.2d 46, 53 (1988) (citing Sullivan with approval, the Supreme Court held that “[n]o litigant, even a defendant in a criminal case, will be permitted to approbate and reprobate – to invite error, as the defense admittedly did here, and then to take advantage of the situation created by his own wrong”).6 6 Recognizing that Sullivan makes clear that the invited error bar can apply even when the issue was raised while the matter was before the trial court, the dissent does its best to distinguish Sullivan from this case.

2016See also Fisher v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 416 , 374 S.E.2d 46, 53 (1988) (citing Sullivan with approval, the Supreme Court held that “[n]o litigant, even a defendant in a criminal case, will be permitted to approbate and reprobate – to invite error, as the defense admittedly did here, and then to take advantage of the situation created by his own wrong”).6 6 Recognizing that Sullivan makes clear that the invited error bar can apply even when the issue was raised while the matter was before the trial court, the dissent does its best to distinguish Sullivan from this case.

2016Stated alternatively, “[a] motion for a mistrial must be made at the time an objectionable element is injected into the trial of the case.” Tizon v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 1, 13 , 723 S.E.2d 260, 266 (2012) (quoting Ronald J.

2016Stated alternatively, “[a] motion for a mistrial must be made at the time an objectionable element is injected into the trial of the case.” Tizon v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 1, 13 , 723 S.E.2d 260, 266 (2012) (quoting Ronald J.