invited error in Indiana

2026The invited error doctrine “forbids a party to ‘take advantage of an error that [he] commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.’” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)).

2023The doctrine of invited error “forbids a party from taking ‘advantage of an error that she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or misconduct.’” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)).

2018We disagree for two reasons. [19] First, the doctrine of invited error provides that “a party may not take advantage of an error that she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or misconduct.” Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128, 133-34 (Ind. 2005).

2018See Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128, 133 (Ind. 2005) (under the invited error doctrine, “a party may not take advantage of an error that [he] commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.”) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 06A01-1711-DR-2586 | June 7, 2018 Page 8 of 14 Decision to Award Incapacity Maintenance [17] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-15-7-2, a divorcing spouse may receive post-dissolution maintenance as incapacity maintenance, caregiver maintenance, or rehabilitative maintenance.

2026The invited error doctrine “forbids a party to ‘take advantage of an error that [he] commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.’” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)).

2025See Miller, 188 N.E.3d at 874-75 (“The invited-error doctrine generally precludes a party from obtaining appellate relief for his own errors, even if those errors were fundamental.”). [14] A party invites an error if it “resulted from [their] affirmative actions as part of a deliberate, ‘well-informed’ trial strategy.” Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550, 558 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 954 (Ind. 2014), reh’g 4 A “forcible felony” is “a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a hu

2025“The invited-error doctrine generally precludes a party from obtaining appellate relief for his own errors, even if those errors were fundamental.” Id. at 874-75. “‘[W]hen the failure to object accompanies the party’s affirmative requests of the court, it becomes a question of invited error.’” Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550, 556 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018)). [52] Although the State initially proposed a final instruction regarding accessory liability, Gamble objected to giving the instruction in part because giving an accessory liability instruction

2023The doctrine of invited error “forbids a party from taking ‘advantage of an error that she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or misconduct.’” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)).

2020“The doctrine of invited error is grounded in estoppel and precludes a party from taking advantage of an error that he or she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his or her own neglect or misconduct.” Balicki, 837 N.E.2d at 541 .

2019“The doctrine of invited error is grounded in estoppel and precludes a party from taking advantage of an error that he or she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his or her own neglect or misconduct.” Balicki v. Balicki, 837 N.E.2d 532, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), 2 Hybrid representation occurs when “the duties of trial advocacy are shared by a defendant and his attorney, or when a defendant proceeds pro se with an attorney in an advisory capacity.” See Swinehart v. State, 376 N.E.2d 486, 490 (Ind. 1978) (citing Bradberry v. State, 266 N.E.2d 538 , 537 (Ind. 1977)).

2025“The invited-error doctrine generally precludes a party from obtaining appellate relief for his own errors, even if those errors were fundamental.” Id. at 874-75. “‘[W]hen the failure to object accompanies the party’s affirmative requests of the court, it becomes a question of invited error.’” Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550, 556 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018)). [52] Although the State initially proposed a final instruction regarding accessory liability, Gamble objected to giving the instruction in part because giving an accessory liability instruction

2025See Miller, 188 N.E.3d at 874-75 (“The invited-error doctrine generally precludes a party from obtaining appellate relief for his own errors, even if those errors were fundamental.”). [14] A party invites an error if it “resulted from [their] affirmative actions as part of a deliberate, ‘well-informed’ trial strategy.” Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550, 558 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 954 (Ind. 2014), reh’g 4 A “forcible felony” is “a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a hu

2019“Under the invited error doctrine, ‘a party may not take advantage of an error that she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or misconduct.’” Baugh v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1277, 1280 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)).

2013See Baugh v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1277, 1280 (Ind. 2010) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a party may not take advantage of an error that she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or misconduct.” (internal quotation omitted)).

2014“Under the invited error doctrine, a party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct.” Reinhart v. Reinhart, 938 N.E.2d 788, 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

2014See Reinhardt v. Reinhardt, 938 N.E.2d 788, 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (stating that “[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct “).

2017We disagree. [23] The invited error doctrine forbids a party to take advantage of an error that he “commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014). “[E]rror invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.” Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 822 (Ind. 2002) (citation omitted). [24] Washington introduced a letter from the victim of one of his juvenile offenses, wherein the victim asked the trial court to have mercy on Washington at sentencing in the present case.

2015The invited error doctrine forbids a party to take advantage of an error that she “commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or misconduct.” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 974-75 (Ind. 2014), cert. denied (2015); Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1503-CR-161 | December 31, 2015 Page 4 of 9 904, 907 (Ind. 2005). “[E]rror invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.” Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 822 (Ind. 2002) (citation omitted).

2019Rather, such invited error “is not reversible error” and is “not subject to appellate review.” Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind. 1995).

2018And “‘invited error is not fundamental error’ and is not subject to appellate review[.]” Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126, 1136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind. 1995)).

2018“Under the doctrine of invited error, a party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct.” Hill v. State, 51 N.E.3d 446, 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind.2005).

2018“Under the doctrine of invited error, a party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct.” Hill v. State, 51 N.E.3d 446, 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind.2005).

2012“The doctrine of invited error, grounded in estoppel, provides that a party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct.” Breining v. Harkness, 872 N.E.2d 155, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Witte v. Mundy ex rel.

2012“The doctrine of invited error, grounded in estoppel, provides that a party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct.” Breining v. Harkness, 872 N.E.2d 155, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Witte v. Mundy ex rel.

2023See Crowl v. Berryhill, 678 N.E.2d 828, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (ruling that a party who stipulated to an order could not later claim the judgment was void due to lack of statutory authority); Stolberg v. Stolberg, 538 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (“Invited error is not subject to review by this court.”).

2003Thus, Wife was precluded from taking advantage of the invited error, see id., and the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Wife's motion and modified the visitation provision.

2016The invited error doctrine forbids a party to take advantage of an error that he “commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.” Nichols v. State, 55 N.E.3d 854, 862 (Ind. Ct. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A04-1604-CR-919 | December 8, 2016 Page 8 of 10 App. 2016 ) (quoting Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 970 , reh’g denied), trans. denied.

2016The invited error doctrine forbids a party to take advantage of an error that he “commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.” Nichols v. State, 55 N.E.3d 854, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 970 , 190 L.Ed.2d 834 , reh’g denied), trans. denied.

2023See Crowl v. Berryhill, 678 N.E.2d 828, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (ruling that a party who stipulated to an order could not later claim the judgment was void due to lack of statutory authority); Stolberg v. Stolberg, 538 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (“Invited error is not subject to review by this court.”).

1999Cuto v. State, 709 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (citations omitted); see also Crowl v. Berryhill, 678 N.E.2d 828, 830 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (“Invited error is not subject to review by this court.”).

2020Id.

2019Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128, 133 (Ind. 2005) (quoting Evans v. Evans, 766 N.E.2d 1240, 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

2018And “‘invited error is not fundamental error’ and is not subject to appellate review[.]” Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126, 1136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind. 1995)).

2018“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.” Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126, 1136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind. 1995)).

2020See Webb, 891 N.E.2d at 1155 (any error by trial court in failing to consider Wife’s sale of automobile as dissipating assets and assigning a value to the automobile was invited error in dissolution action because Husband testified that he had no objection to the automobile being sold with no profit, so Husband could not complain about the valuation or alleged error on appeal); see also Wright v. Wright, 782 N.E.2d 363, 368 (Ind. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2192 | November 18, 2020 Page 16 of 20 Ct. App. 2002) (where Wife objected at final hearing to only one word

2020See Webb, 891 N.E.2d at 1155 (any error by trial court in failing to consider Wife’s sale of automobile as dissipating assets and assigning a value to the automobile was invited error in dissolution action because Husband testified that he had no objection to the automobile being sold with no profit, so Husband could not complain about the valuation or alleged error on appeal); see also Wright v. Wright, 782 N.E.2d 363, 368 (Ind. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2192 | November 18, 2020 Page 16 of 20 Ct. App. 2002) (where Wife objected at final hearing to only one word

2020“The doctrine of invited error is grounded in estoppel and precludes a party from taking advantage of an error that he or she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his or her own neglect or misconduct.” Id. (citing Balicki v. Balicki, 837 N.E.2d. 532, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied).

2019See Prime Mortgage USA, Inc. v. Nichols, 885 N.E.2d 628, 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (noting that the doctrine of invited error precludes a party from taking Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JT-350 | September 24, 2019 Page 15 of 31 advantage of an error that he or she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his or her own neglect or misconduct). [26] Although we do not suggest that Mother engaged in such “sandbagging” here, the result is the same: she waived the statutory deadline, then sought dismissal after the court acted on her waiver.

2020See Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128 , 133–34 (Ind. 2005); Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252 , 1254 n.2 (Ind. 2008) (party who advised trial court that special findings were unnecessary was estopped from arguing on appeal that trial court erred in not entering findings); Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005) (State precluded from arguing on appeal that trial court erred in Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-PL-2175 | March 24, 2020 Page 15 of 20 merging convictions where trial court did so on the State’s recommendation).

2011See, e.g., Baxendale v. Raich, 878 N.E.2d 1252, 1254, n. 2 (Ind.2008) (party who advised trial court that special findings were unnecessary was estopped from arguing on appeal that the trial court erred in not entering findings); Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind.2005) (applying doctrine of invited error to preclude the State from arguing on appeal that trial court erred in merging convictions for burglary and theft, where trial court did so on the State’s recommendation); Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128, 133-34 (Ind.2005) (under the judicial doctrine of invited error, which is based on

2019Vol. III at 22, 24.) [16] "Under the invited error doctrine, a party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct." Stewart v. State , 945 N.E.2d 1277 , 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied .

2012See Stewart v. State, 945 N.E.2d 1277, 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (emphasizing that under the invited error doctrine, a party may not take advantage of error she commits or invites), trans. denied. 5 offered the State the opportunity to voir dire Officer Neal to lay a foundation for the hearsay testimony.

2019Vol. III p. 199. [27] To the extent that Williams now alleges double jeopardy violations from the trial court’s entry of judgments of conviction on his convictions, we agree with the State that these claims are precluded by the invited error doctrine; however, as our Supreme Court has determined, “a double jeopardy violation, if shown, implicates fundamental rights and the invited error doctrine must ‘yield to the constitution.’” See Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 934, 942 (Ind. 1998); see Cuto v. State, 709 N.E.2d 356, 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

2016As we explained in Cuto, a double jeopardy violation, if shown, “ensnares fundamental rights,” and therefore the invited error doctrine must “yield to the constitution.” 709 N.E.2d at 361 .

2025D.G. v. S.G., 82 N.E.3d 342, 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied.

2024See D.G. v. S.G., 82 N.E.3d 342, 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (rejecting a due process violation argument where the mother invited the error and, “[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JP-2316 | August 14, 2024 Page 19 of 38 may not take advantage of an error that she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct”), trans. denied.

2020See Webb, 891 N.E.2d at 1155 (any error by trial court in failing to consider Wife’s sale of automobile as dissipating assets and assigning a value to the automobile was invited error in dissolution action because Husband testified that he had no objection to the automobile being sold with no profit, so Husband could not complain about the valuation or alleged error on appeal); see also Wright v. Wright, 782 N.E.2d 363, 368 (Ind. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2192 | November 18, 2020 Page 16 of 20 Ct. App. 2002) (where Wife objected at final hearing to only one word

2020See Webb, 891 N.E.2d at 1155 (any error by trial court in failing to consider Wife’s sale of automobile as dissipating assets and assigning a value to the automobile was invited error in dissolution action because Husband testified that he had no objection to the automobile being sold with no profit, so Husband could not complain about the valuation or alleged error on appeal); see also Wright v. Wright, 782 N.E.2d 363, 368 (Ind. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-DR-2192 | November 18, 2020 Page 16 of 20 Ct. App. 2002) (where Wife objected at final hearing to only one word

2019Dep’t of Child Servs., 896 N.E.2d 571, 588 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (holding that the doctrine of invited error provides that a party may not take advantage of an error that she commits or invites), trans. denied.

2014See C.T. v. Marion County Dep’t of Child Servs., 896 N.E.2d 571, 588 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (stating that “[t]he doctrine of invited error, grounded in estoppel, provides that a party may not take advantage of an error that he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of his own neglect or misconduct”).

2020The invited error doctrine forbids a party to take advantage of an error that the party “commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [the party’s] own neglect or misconduct,” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)), given some evidence that the error resulted from an “appellant’s affirmative actions as part of a deliberate, ‘well-informed’ trial strategy.” Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550, 558 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 954 (Ind. 2014), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1077 , 135

2016The invited error doctrine forbids a party to take advantage of an error that he “commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.” Nichols v. State, 55 N.E.3d 854, 862 (Ind. Ct. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A04-1604-CR-919 | December 8, 2016 Page 8 of 10 App. 2016 ) (quoting Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 970 , reh’g denied), trans. denied.

2018Smith v. McLeod Distrib., Inc., 744 N.E.2d 459, 466 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

2018Smith v. McLeod Distrib., Inc., 744 N.E.2d 459, 466 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

2016The invited error doctrine forbids a party to take advantage of an error that he “commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.” Nichols v. State, 55 N.E.3d 854, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 970 , 190 L.Ed.2d 834 , reh’g denied), trans. denied.

2016The invited error doctrine forbids a party to take advantage of an error that he “commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.” Brew ington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind.2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind.2005)), reh’g denied, cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 970 , 190 L.Ed.2d 834 , reh’g denied.

2015Mitchell v. State, 730 N.E.2d 197, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (upholding restitution order where Mitchell agreed to pay counseling expenses up to a certain dollar amount).

2012Id.