invited error in Kansas

2025State v. Pattillo, 311 Kan. 995 , 1015, 469 P.3d 1250 (2020) ("We hold the invited-error doctrine will generally apply when a party requests the instruction before trial, the error was as obvious before trial as when the judge gave the instruction, and the party did not present to the trial judge the same objection as made on appeal."); see State v. Fleming, 308 Kan. 689 ,707, 423 P.3d 506 (2018) (finding invited error precluded review of claimed jury instruction error under facts including defendant's pretrial request for the instruction). 10 Atkins proposed the instruction he now complains a

2021Our Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the invited error doctrine in the context of jury instructions in State v. Pattillo, 311 Kan. 995 , 1014, 469 P.3d 1250 (2020): "Generally, under the invited error doctrine, '"a litigant who invites and leads a trial court into error will not be heard on appeal to complain of that action."' State v. Fleming, 308 Kan. 689 , 696, 706, 423 P.3d 506 (2018).

2021App. 2d 522, 549 , 293 P.3d 787 (2013) ("The invited error doctrine prevents a . . . destructive practice—a party claiming the trial court committed reversible error by acting in the very manner that the party advocated.").

2020The invited error doctrine binds trial counsel to strategic decisions and deters parties from asking a judge to act in a certain way to litter the record with error to provide grounds for appeal of an adverse judgment. 48 Kan.

2021For example, in State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 279-80 , 197 P.3d 337 (2008), the invited error doctrine barred review of a defendant's assertion of error for not giving a lesser included offense instruction when the defendant refused the court's offer to give that instruction.

2021For example, in State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 279-80 , 197 P.3d 337 (2008), the invited error doctrine barred review of a defendant's assertion of error for not giving a lesser included offense instruction when the defendant refused the court's offer to give that instruction.

2021Generally, "when a defendant has invited error, he or she cannot complain of the error on appeal." State v. Verser, 299 Kan. 776, 784 , 326 P.3d 1046 (2014); see also State v. Fleming, 308 Kan. 689 , 699, 423 P.3d 506 (2018) (if the invited error doctrine applies, it precludes a challenge to a jury instruction as clearly erroneous).

2021Generally, "when a defendant has invited error, he or she cannot complain of the error on appeal." State v. Verser, 299 Kan. 776, 784 , 326 P.3d 1046 (2014); see also State v. Fleming, 308 Kan. 689 , 699, 423 P.3d 506 (2018) (if the invited error doctrine applies, it precludes a challenge to a jury instruction as clearly erroneous).

2018We then cited cases in which this court had held the invited-error doctrine applies when a party (1) agrees on the record to the wording in the instruction, (2) requests the instruction, or (3) agrees to or requests a judge's specific response to a jury question. 306 Kan. at 248-49 , 393 P.3d 1031 (citing Jones , 295 Kan. at 811-12 , 286 P.3d 562 ; State v. Peppers , 294 Kan. 377 , 393, 276 P.3d 148 [ (2012) ] ; State v. Adams , 292 Kan. 151 , 163-65, 254 P.3d 515 [ (2011) ] ).

2018We then cited cases in which this court had held the invited-error doctrine applies when a party (1) agrees on the record to the wording in the instruction, (2) requests the instruction, or (3) agrees to or requests a judge's specific response to a jury question. 306 Kan. at 248-49 , 393 P.3d 1031 (citing Jones , 295 Kan. at 811-12 , 286 P.3d 562 ; State v. Peppers , 294 Kan. 377 , 393, 276 P.3d 148 [ (2012) ] ; State v. Adams , 292 Kan. 151 , 163-65, 254 P.3d 515 [ (2011) ] ).

2025State v. Pattillo, 311 Kan. 995 , 1015, 469 P.3d 1250 (2020) ("We hold the invited-error doctrine will generally apply when a party requests the instruction before trial, the error was as obvious before trial as when the judge gave the instruction, and the party did not present to the trial judge the same objection as made on appeal."); see State v. Fleming, 308 Kan. 689 ,707, 423 P.3d 506 (2018) (finding invited error precluded review of claimed jury instruction error under facts including defendant's pretrial request for the instruction). 10 Atkins proposed the instruction he now complains a

2021Our Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the invited error doctrine in the context of jury instructions in State v. Pattillo, 311 Kan. 995 , 1014, 469 P.3d 1250 (2020): "Generally, under the invited error doctrine, '"a litigant who invites and leads a trial court into error will not be heard on appeal to complain of that action."' State v. Fleming, 308 Kan. 689 , 696, 706, 423 P.3d 506 (2018).

2021Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193 , 3 1203-04, 308 P.3d 1238 (2013); State v. Divine, 291 Kan. 738, 742 , 246 P.3d 692 (2011).

2021Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193 , 3 1203-04, 308 P.3d 1238 (2013); State v. Divine, 291 Kan. 738, 742 , 246 P.3d 692 (2011).

2021Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193 , 3 1203-04, 308 P.3d 1238 (2013); State v. Divine, 291 Kan. 738, 742 , 246 P.3d 692 (2011).

2021Thoroughbred Assocs. v. Kansas City Royalty Co., 297 Kan. 1193 , 3 1203-04, 308 P.3d 1238 (2013); State v. Divine, 291 Kan. 738, 742 , 246 P.3d 692 (2011).

2024See Lewis, 299 Kan. at 854-55 .

2015See State v. Lewis, 299 Kan. 828, 855 , 326 P.3d 387 (2014) (rejecting invited error argument based on defendants mere acquiescence to jury question response); see also State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 279-80 , 197 P.3d 337 (2008) (applying invited error doctrine because defendant affirmatively requested no lesser included offense instruction because his strategy was an “all-or-nothing defense”); State v. Kirtdoll, 281 Kan. 1138, 1150 , 136 P.3d 417 (2006) (applying invited error doctrine and distinguishing failure to object from affirmatively requesting the challenged instruction).

2020Whether the doctrine of invited error applies "is a question of law subject to unlimited review." State v. Parks, 308 Kan. 39 , 42, 417 P.3d 1070 (2018).

2020Whether the doctrine of invited error applies "is a question of law subject to unlimited review." State v. Parks, 308 Kan. 39 , 42, 417 P.3d 1070 (2018).

2025State v. Lehman, 308 Kan. 1089 , 1093, 427 P.3d 840 (2018) ("[A] party cannot be bound by a requested illegal sentence through the invited error doctrine.").

2019The State responds parties may not stipulate to an illegal sentence and the invited error rule does not apply, citing State v. Lehman , 308 Kan. 1089 , 427 P.3d 840 (2018).

2025"Under the invited error doctrine, a litigant may not invite error and then complain of that same error on appeal." State v. Willis, 312 Kan. 127 , 131, 475 P.3d 324 (2020).

2024Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant cannot challenge an instruction on appeal, even as clearly erroneous under K.S.A. 22-3414(3), "when there has been an on-the- 3 record agreement to the wording of the instruction at trial." State v. Willis, 312 Kan. 127 , 131, 475 P.3d 324 (2020).

2017In declining to apply the doctrine, we noted that "'[a] party must do more than simply fail to object to a district court's proposed jury instruction to risk application of the invited error doctrine.'" 304 Kan. at 444 (quoting State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384 , Syl. ¶ 4, 362 P.3d 566 [2015]).

2017In declining to apply the doctrine, we noted that "'[a] party must do more than simply fail to object to a district court's proposed jury instruction to risk application of the invited error doctrine.'" 304 Kan. at 444 (quoting State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384 , Syl. ¶ 4, 362 P.3d 566 [2015]).

2014The court noted the invited error rule, but performed a harmless error analysis after observing that “the invited error rule cannot be used as a pretext for the violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights where there is no justification for so doing.” 256 Kan. at 685 .

2013The decision also cites State v. Gadelkarim, 256 Kan. 671, 685 , 887 P.2d 88 (1994), in which tire court declined to apply the invited error rule to a defendant’s claimed Doyle violation.

2021See State v. Cottrell, 310 Kan. 150 , 162, 445 P.3d 1132 (2019) (applying invited error rule where defendant actively pursued the instruction).

2020Regarding this step, "'[w]hether the invited error doctrine applies is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review.'" State v. Cottrell, 310 Kan. 150 , 161, 445 P.3d 1132 (2019).

2018We then cited cases in which this court had held the invited-error doctrine applies when a party (1) agrees on the record to the wording in the instruction, (2) requests the instruction, or (3) agrees to or requests a judge's specific response to a jury question. 306 Kan. at 248-49 , 393 P.3d 1031 (citing Jones , 295 Kan. at 811-12 , 286 P.3d 562 ; State v. Peppers , 294 Kan. 377 , 393, 276 P.3d 148 [ (2012) ] ; State v. Adams , 292 Kan. 151 , 163-65, 254 P.3d 515 [ (2011) ] ).

2018We then cited cases in which this court had held the invited-error doctrine applies when a party (1) agrees on the record to the wording in the instruction, (2) requests the instruction, or (3) agrees to or requests a judge's specific response to a jury question. 306 Kan. at 248-49 , 393 P.3d 1031 (citing Jones , 295 Kan. at 811-12 , 286 P.3d 562 ; State v. Peppers , 294 Kan. 377 , 393, 276 P.3d 148 [ (2012) ] ; State v. Adams , 292 Kan. 151 , 163-65, 254 P.3d 515 [ (2011) ] ).

2018"The invited error doctrine applies only when the party fails to object and invites the error, unless the error is structural." State v. Logsdon , 304 Kan. 3 , 31, 371 P.3d 836 (2016).

2018"The invited error doctrine applies only when the party fails to object and invites the error, unless the error is structural." State v. Logsdon , 304 Kan. 3 , 31, 371 P.3d 836 (2016).

2021So there was an argument, but there's certainly not anything sufficient to show a self-defense, et cetera." Discussion "The doctrine of invited error precludes a party from asking a district court to rule a given way and thereafter challenging the court's ruling on appeal." State v. Soto, 301 Kan. 969, 983 , 349 P.3d 1256 (2015).

2021So there was an argument, but there's certainly not anything sufficient to show a self-defense, et cetera." Discussion "The doctrine of invited error precludes a party from asking a district court to rule a given way and thereafter challenging the court's ruling on appeal." State v. Soto, 301 Kan. 969, 983 , 349 P.3d 1256 (2015).

2016Judge Atcheson concurred in the result on the merits because he felt constrained to do so by Kansas Supreme Court precedent, but he rejected the majority’s application of the invited error doctrine. 49 Kan.

2016One argument adopts Judge Atcheson’s position that the 2009 amendment to K.S.A. 21-4715(c-) “effectively negates the invited error doctrine with respect to a defendant’s criminal history and, thus, allows a defendant to challenge a legal mistake in his or her criminal history even after admitting to the mistaken histoiy at sentencing.” 49 Kan.