complained-of instruction in California

2025(See People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 33, fn. 6 .) Neither did Altamirano invite the error because the record does not reveal “a deliberate tactical purpose in resisting . . . the complained-of instruction.” (Souza, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 114 [invited error doctrine does not apply to lesser included instruction error unless defendant “expresses a deliberate tactical purpose”]; accord, People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 115 .) 12 reasonable probability of a different result.

2025(People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46 .) “ ‘The “ ‘doctrine of invited error’ is an ‘application of the estoppel principle’: ‘Where a party by his conduct induces the commission of error, he is estopped from asserting it as a ground for reversal’ on appeal.” [Citation.] The purpose of the doctrine is to “prevent a party from misleading the trial court and then profiting therefrom in the appellate court.” [Citation.]’ ” (San Mateo Union High School District v. County of San Mateo, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 436 .) “Invited error . . . will only be found if counsel expresses a deliberate

1985See part III, infra. The test enunciated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], requires an appellate court to determine whether it is reasonably probable that, but for the complained-of error, a result more favorable to the appellant would have resulted.

1985See part III, infra. The test enunciated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], requires an appellate court to determine whether it is reasonably probable that, but for the complained-of error, a result more favorable to the appellant would have resulted.

2025(See People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 33, fn. 6 .) Neither did Altamirano invite the error because the record does not reveal “a deliberate tactical purpose in resisting . . . the complained-of instruction.” (Souza, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 114 [invited error doctrine does not apply to lesser included instruction error unless defendant “expresses a deliberate tactical purpose”]; accord, People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 115 .) 12 reasonable probability of a different result.

2024(People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 114 .) This duty “ ‘ “exists even when as a matter of trial tactics a defendant not only fails to request the instruction but expressly objects to its being given.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “Nevertheless, the claim may be waived under the doctrine of invited error if trial counsel both ‘ “intentionally caused the trial court to err” ’ and clearly did so for tactical reasons. [Citation.] Invited error will be found, however, only if counsel expresses a deliberate tactical purpose in resisting or acceding to the complained-of instruction.” (Ibid.) Here, defense counsel

2015"As appellate courts have explained time and again, merely acceding to an erroneous instruction does not constitute invited error." (People v. Smith (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 196, 207, fn. 20 .) Rather, "[i]nvited error will be found . . . only if counsel expresses a deliberate tactical purpose in resisting or acceding to the complained-of instruction." (People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 114 .) The People do not articulate any tactical advantage either defendant may have sought to obtain by agreeing to CALCRIM No. 335.

2013But “[ijnvited error will be found . . . only if counsel expresses a deliberate tactical purpose in resisting or acceding to the complained-of instruction.” (People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 114 [ 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 419 , 277 P.3d 118 ].) On this record, we cannot definitively conclude that Mason’s trial counsel made a deliberate tactical choice by not objecting to or seeking modification of the jury instruction on the section 290 charge. “[Mjerely acceding to an erroneous instruction does not constitute invited error.” (People v. Smith (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 196, 207, fn. 20 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d

2020Quiles acknowledges that defense counsel expressly agreed not to have the jury be instructed with CALCRIM No. 703 but insists that the doctrine of invited error is not applicable because it “applies [only] when the defense has made a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice” ’ ” ’ in asking for the instruction in question.” (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 104 .) Quiles relies on People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 114 , where the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of invited error applies when defense counsel fails to request an instruction or objects to an instruction on l

2016(People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710 , 96 P.3d 30 ].) It will not apply if counsel acted out of ignorance or mistake. {Ibid.) If defense counsel takes affirmative action, a clearly implied tactical purpose will suffice to invoke the doctrine.

2020Quiles acknowledges that defense counsel expressly agreed not to have the jury be instructed with CALCRIM No. 703 but insists that the doctrine of invited error is not applicable because it “applies [only] when the defense has made a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice” ’ ” ’ in asking for the instruction in question.” (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 104 .) Quiles relies on People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 114 , where the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of invited error applies when defense counsel fails to request an instruction or objects to an instruction on l

2016“Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant cannot complain that the court erred in giving an instruction that he requested. [Citation.] The invited error doctrine applies when the defense has made a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice” ’ ” ’ in asking for the instruction in question.” (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 104 [ 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 ]; see also People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 400 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 , 349 P.3d 1028 ] [“ ‘Invited error . . . will only be found if counsel expresses a deliberate tactical purpose in resisting or acceding to

2025(See People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 33, fn. 6 .) Neither did Altamirano invite the error because the record does not reveal “a deliberate tactical purpose in resisting . . . the complained-of instruction.” (Souza, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 114 [invited error doctrine does not apply to lesser included instruction error unless defendant “expresses a deliberate tactical purpose”]; accord, People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 115 .) 12 reasonable probability of a different result.

2020Quiles acknowledges that defense counsel expressly agreed not to have the jury be instructed with CALCRIM No. 703 but insists that the doctrine of invited error is not applicable because it “applies [only] when the defense has made a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice” ’ ” ’ in asking for the instruction in question.” (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 104 .) Quiles relies on People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 114 , where the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of invited error applies when defense counsel fails to request an instruction or objects to an instruction on l

2020(See People v. Jandres (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 340, 359 (Jandres) [flawed version of CALCRIM No. 1191 identifying uncharged offense that was not a sexual offense did not violate defendant’s right to due process by relieving prosecution of its burden of proof on charged offenses].) “ ‘[T]here is no reasonable likelihood [an erroneous] instruction on uncharged offenses relieved the prosecution of its burden of proof with respect to the charged offenses’ ” because “[p]ropensity [is], of course, not an element of any of the charged crimes.” (Ibid.) The failure to object to instructional error relat

2016“Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant cannot complain that the court erred in giving an instruction that he requested. [Citation.] The invited error doctrine applies when the defense has made a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice” ’ ” ’ in asking for the instruction in question.” (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 104 [ 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 ]; see also People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 400 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 , 349 P.3d 1028 ] [“ ‘Invited error . . . will only be found if counsel expresses a deliberate tactical purpose in resisting or acceding to

2016“Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant cannot complain that the court erred in giving an instruction that he requested. [Citation.] The invited error doctrine applies when the defense has made a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice” ’ ” ’ in asking for the instruction in question.” (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 104 [ 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 332 P.3d 1187 ]; see also People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 400 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 , 349 P.3d 1028 ] [“ ‘Invited error . . . will only be found if counsel expresses a deliberate tactical purpose in resisting or acceding to

2014We note, however, that the complained-of instruction did not improperly make “reference to the expense and inconvenience of a retrial.” (People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 852, fn. 16 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 861 , 566 P.2d 997 ].) But any error was not prejudicial.

2014We note, however, that the complained-of instruction did not improperly make “reference to the expense and inconvenience of a retrial.” (People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 852, fn. 16 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 861 , 566 P.2d 997 ].) But any error was not prejudicial.

2013(People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 481 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 ].) Further, even in the absence of an objection or when a party has acquiesced or concurred in the trial court’s giving of an instruction, that instruction may be reviewed on appeal if it affected the defendant’s “substantial rights.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 442 ]; § 1259.) “[A] defendant [need not] request amplification or modification [of an instruction] to preserve the issue for appeal where, as here, the error consists of a breach of the trial court’s fundamental i

2013(People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 481 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 ].) Further, even in the absence of an objection or when a party has acquiesced or concurred in the trial court’s giving of an instruction, that instruction may be reviewed on appeal if it affected the defendant’s “substantial rights.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 442 ]; § 1259.) “[A] defendant [need not] request amplification or modification [of an instruction] to preserve the issue for appeal where, as here, the error consists of a breach of the trial court’s fundamental i

2013(People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 481 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 ].) Further, even in the absence of an objection or when a party has acquiesced or concurred in the trial court’s giving of an instruction, that instruction may be reviewed on appeal if it affected the defendant’s “substantial rights.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 442 ]; § 1259.) “[A] defendant [need not] request amplification or modification [of an instruction] to preserve the issue for appeal where, as here, the error consists of a breach of the trial court’s fundamental i

2013(People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 481 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 ].) Further, even in the absence of an objection or when a party has acquiesced or concurred in the trial court’s giving of an instruction, that instruction may be reviewed on appeal if it affected the defendant’s “substantial rights.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 442 ]; § 1259.) “[A] defendant [need not] request amplification or modification [of an instruction] to preserve the issue for appeal where, as here, the error consists of a breach of the trial court’s fundamental i

2013(People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 481 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 ].) Further, even in the absence of an objection or when a party has acquiesced or concurred in the trial court’s giving of an instruction, that instruction may be reviewed on appeal if it affected the defendant’s “substantial rights.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 442 ]; § 1259.) “[A] defendant [need not] request amplification or modification [of an instruction] to preserve the issue for appeal where, as here, the error consists of a breach of the trial court’s fundamental i

2013(People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 481 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 ].) Further, even in the absence of an objection or when a party has acquiesced or concurred in the trial court’s giving of an instruction, that instruction may be reviewed on appeal if it affected the defendant’s “substantial rights.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 442 ]; § 1259.) “[A] defendant [need not] request amplification or modification [of an instruction] to preserve the issue for appeal where, as here, the error consists of a breach of the trial court’s fundamental i