party from injecting error in Arizona

2024Mental Health No. MH2009-002120, 225 Ariz. 284 , 287 ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“We generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, argued for the first time on appeal.”); State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n.7 ¶ 59 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal); In re MH–1140–6–93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 (App. 1993) (finding alleged due process violations were waived as arguments because they were raised for the first time on appeal).

2011“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” Schlecht v. Schiel, 76 Ariz. 214, 220 , 262 P.2d 252, 256 (1953); see also State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, 93 P.3d 1061 , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal).

2024See State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564, 566, ¶ 11 (2001) (“The purpose of the [invited error] doctrine is to prevent a party from injecting error in the record and then profiting from it on appeal.”) (cleaned up); Sunland Dairy LLC v. Milky Way Dairy LLC, 251 Ariz. 64 , 70, ¶ 24 (App. 2021) (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” (quoting Caruthers v. Underhill, 235 Ariz. 1, 7, ¶ 23 (App. 2014))).

2020We conclude that the court misapplied the doctrine as its decision conflicts with invited error jurisprudence from our Court and the court of appeals. ¶15 “The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” State v. Rushing, 243 Ariz. 212 , 217 ¶ 14 (2017); see also State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564 , 566 ¶ 11 (2001).

2011“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” Schlecht v. Schiel, 76 Ariz. 214, 220 , 262 P.2d 252, 256 (1953); see also State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, 93 P.3d 1061 , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal).

2011“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” Schlecht v. Schiel, 76 Ariz. 214, 220 , 262 P.2d 252, 256 (1953); see also State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, 93 P.3d 1061 , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal).

2025See State v. Robertson, 249 Ariz. 256, 260, ¶ 15 (2020) (“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” (citation modified)).

2023See State v. Dixon, 226 Ariz. 545, 554, ¶ 44 (2011); accord State v. Robertson, 249 Ariz. 256, 260, ¶ 15 (2020) (“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” (quotation omitted)). ¶27 Second, Kemp contends his counsel did not “help[] him to navigate [the] legal process.” Ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised on direct appeal, however; it must be raised in a separate post- conviction proceeding.

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, “[bjefore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians’ affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify.” In re MH 2008-001752, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 3 (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). 4 The footnote cited MH 2007-001275, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial heating by stipulating to the c

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, "[b]efore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians' affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify." In re MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 [3] (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). [4] The footnote cited MH XXXX-XXXXXX, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial hearing by stipulating to t

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, “[bjefore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians’ affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify.” In re MH 2008-001752, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 3 (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). 4 The footnote cited MH 2007-001275, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial heating by stipulating to the c

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, “[bjefore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians’ affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify.” In re MH 2008-001752, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 3 (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). 4 The footnote cited MH 2007-001275, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial heating by stipulating to the c

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, “[bjefore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians’ affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify.” In re MH 2008-001752, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 3 (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). 4 The footnote cited MH 2007-001275, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial heating by stipulating to the c

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, "[b]efore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians' affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify." In re MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 [3] (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). [4] The footnote cited MH XXXX-XXXXXX, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial hearing by stipulating to t

2025And although, as C-Back correctly noted, “[t]he superior court was not required to accept and examine evidence presented to it for the first time in connection with [a] motion for reconsideration,” Tilley v. Delci, 220 Ariz. 233, 238, ¶ 17 (App. 2009), that principle is irrelevant here because the superior court did, in fact, accept and consider the conditional loan approval.

2024See State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564, 566, ¶ 11 (2001) (“The purpose of the [invited error] doctrine is to prevent a party from injecting error in the record and then profiting from it on appeal.”) (cleaned up); Sunland Dairy LLC v. Milky Way Dairy LLC, 251 Ariz. 64 , 70, ¶ 24 (App. 2021) (“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” (quoting Caruthers v. Underhill, 235 Ariz. 1, 7, ¶ 23 (App. 2014))).

2024Mental Health No. MH2009-002120, 225 Ariz. 284 , 287 ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“We generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, argued for the first time on appeal.”); State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n.7 ¶ 59 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal); In re MH–1140–6–93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 (App. 1993) (finding alleged due process violations were waived as arguments because they were raised for the first time on appeal).

2024Mental Health No. MH2009-002120, 225 Ariz. 284 , 287 ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“We generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, argued for the first time on appeal.”); State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n.7 ¶ 59 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal); In re MH–1140–6–93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 (App. 1993) (finding alleged due process violations were waived as arguments because they were raised for the first time on appeal).

2023See State v. Dixon, 226 Ariz. 545, 554, ¶ 44 (2011); accord State v. Robertson, 249 Ariz. 256, 260, ¶ 15 (2020) (“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” (quotation omitted)). ¶27 Second, Kemp contends his counsel did not “help[] him to navigate [the] legal process.” Ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised on direct appeal, however; it must be raised in a separate post- conviction proceeding.

2018Therefore, the statute only requires courts to determine whether a confession was involuntary when voluntariness is disputed by the defense, and not, as Snee contends, in every case in which the State seeks to introduce a confession. ¶7 Our interpretation is consistent with Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.1, which governs pretrial motions and requires parties “to make all motions no later than 20 days before trial . . . .” See also State v. Ferguson, 119 Ariz. 200, 201 (1978) (“Inasmuch as appellant had not made a motion to suppress prior to the trial, and did not object to the questions

2018“When 1 The Honorable Patricia A. Orozco, retired Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution. 2 Snee did not “invite” the error by withdrawing his motion, as the State argues, and we therefore decline to apply the invited-error doctrine, which “prevents a party from injecting the error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” State v. Rushing, 243 Ariz. 212 , 217, ¶ 14 (2017) (emphasis added). 2 STATE v. SNEE Opinion of the Court interpreting a statute, we look to the

2017See Logan, 200 Ariz. at 633, ¶ 11 (“The purpose of the [invited error] doctrine is to prevent a party from injecting error in the record and then profiting from it on appeal.”) (quotation omitted). ¶23 However, the statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument related to both the expert and the detective’s testimony about the percentage of cases in which they discovered that a victim had made a false accusation were a violation of the principle set forth in State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472 (1986).

2017It has long been settled that an expert is precluded from offering opinions “with respect to the accuracy, reliability or truthfulness of witnesses of the type under consideration,“ see Lindsey, 149 Ariz. at 475 , or quantifying “the percentage of victims who are truthful in their initial reports despite subsequent recantation.” Moran, 151 Ariz. at 382 .

2016See id. ¶ 11 (noting purpose of invited error doctrine is to prevent a party from injecting error in the record and profiting from it on appeal); State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, n.2 , 54 P.3d 368 , 369 n.2 (App. 2002) (refusing to apply invited error doctrine where record did not reflect which party proposed stipulation which was source of error); cf. Gaston v. Hunter, 121 Ariz. 33, 41 , 588 P.2d 326, 334 (App. 1978) (finding acceptance of ruling with “uncharacteristic acquiescence and meekness” did not rise to the level of invited error).

2016See id. ¶ 11 (noting purpose of invited error doctrine is to prevent a party from injecting error in the record and profiting from it on appeal); State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, n.2 , 54 P.3d 368 , 369 n.2 (App. 2002) (refusing to apply invited error doctrine where record did not reflect which party proposed stipulation which was source of error); cf. Gaston v. Hunter, 121 Ariz. 33, 41 , 588 P.2d 326, 334 (App. 1978) (finding acceptance of ruling with “uncharacteristic acquiescence and meekness” did not rise to the level of invited error).

2011Thus, while the court erred by continuing the hearing beyond the statutory limit, Patient invited this error and cannot seek to vacate the order on appeal. 3 See MH 2007-001264, 218 Ariz. at 540, ¶ 12 , 189 P.3d at 1113 (“In the absence of a continuance request from the patient” the court could not continue the hearing beyond the six-day time period.). (b) Pre-Petition Commitment Procedures ¶ 13 Patient next argues that the court did not have jurisdiction because the proceedings below did not strictly comply with pre-petition procedures mandated for civil commitment proceedings.

2011Thus, while the court erred by continuing the hearing beyond the statutory limit, Patient invited this error and cannot seek to vacate the order on appeal. 3 See MH 2007-001264, 218 Ariz. at 540, ¶ 12 , 189 P.3d at 1113 (“In the absence of a continuance request from the patient” the court could not continue the hearing beyond the six-day time period.). (b) Pre-Petition Commitment Procedures ¶ 13 Patient next argues that the court did not have jurisdiction because the proceedings below did not strictly comply with pre-petition procedures mandated for civil commitment proceedings.