party from asserting error in District of Columbia

2026The government argues that we should not entertain this claim because Phillips invited any error, and “the invited error doctrine precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that he or she has induced the trial 11 court to take.” Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363, 368 (D.C. 2007).

2025This doctrine generally “precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that [they have] induced the trial court to take.” Young v. United States, 305 A.3d 402 , 430 (D.C. 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363, 368 (D.C. 2007)); see also, e.g., id. at 429 (“However, both [defendants] agreed to this jury instruction at trial, thus inviting the error and waiving any right to raise the claim on appeal.”).

2025P’ship, 630 A.2d 174, 183 (D.C. 1993) (explaining that the invited error doctrine is not “unbending” and “not absolute”); but see Young v. United States, 305 A.3d 402 , 430 (D.C. 2023) (“[T]he invited error doctrine ‘precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that they have induced the trial court to take.’” (quoting Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363, 368 (D.C. 2007))).

2012P’ship, 630 A.2d 174, 183 (D.C.1993) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see, e.g., Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363, 368 (D.C.2007) ("Generally, the invited error doctrine precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that he or she has induced the trial court to take.”). 16 .

2017“The Supreme Court established in Apprendi that the fact of a prior conviction does not have to be submitted to the jury’s consideration before the judge may enhance the sentence.”3 Moreover, under the UPF statute, whether a 2 See Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363, 368 (D.C. 2007) (“Generally, the invited error doctrine precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that he or she has induced the trial court to take.”); Brown v. United States, 627 A.2d 499, 508 (D.C. 1993) (“We have repeatedly held that a defendant may not take one position at trial and a contradictory posi

2016See Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363, 368 (D.C. 2007) (“Generally, the invited error doctrine precludes a party from asserting as error on appéal a course that he or she has induced the trial court to take.”); Brown v. United States, 627 A.2d 499, 508 (D.C. 1993) (“We have repeatedly held that a defendant may not take one position at trial and a contradictory position on appeal.”). .

2017“The Supreme Court established in Apprendi that the fact of a prior conviction does not have to be submitted to the jury’s consideration before the judge may enhance the sentence.”3 Moreover, under the UPF statute, whether a 2 See Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363, 368 (D.C. 2007) (“Generally, the invited error doctrine precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that he or she has induced the trial court to take.”); Brown v. United States, 627 A.2d 499, 508 (D.C. 1993) (“We have repeatedly held that a defendant may not take one position at trial and a contradictory posi

2016Eady v. United States, 44 A.3d 257, 261 (D.C. 2012); see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) ("Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”); see also Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151 , 2160 & n.1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (holding that “the principle applied in Apprendi applies with equal force to facts increasing the mandatory minimum,” subject to the same “exception ... for th

2017“The Supreme Court established in Apprendi that the fact of a prior conviction does not have to be submitted to the jury’s consideration before the judge may enhance the sentence.”3 Moreover, under the UPF statute, whether a 2 See Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363, 368 (D.C. 2007) (“Generally, the invited error doctrine precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that he or she has induced the trial court to take.”); Brown v. United States, 627 A.2d 499, 508 (D.C. 1993) (“We have repeatedly held that a defendant may not take one position at trial and a contradictory posi

2016Eady v. United States, 44 A.3d 257, 261 (D.C. 2012); see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) ("Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”); see also Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151 , 2160 & n.1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (holding that “the principle applied in Apprendi applies with equal force to facts increasing the mandatory minimum,” subject to the same “exception ... for th

2017“The Supreme Court established in Apprendi that the fact of a prior conviction does not have to be submitted to the jury’s consideration before the judge may enhance the sentence.”3 Moreover, under the UPF statute, whether a 2 See Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363, 368 (D.C. 2007) (“Generally, the invited error doctrine precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that he or she has induced the trial court to take.”); Brown v. United States, 627 A.2d 499, 508 (D.C. 1993) (“We have repeatedly held that a defendant may not take one position at trial and a contradictory posi

2016Eady v. United States, 44 A.3d 257, 261 (D.C. 2012); see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) ("Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”); see also Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151 , 2160 & n.1, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (holding that “the principle applied in Apprendi applies with equal force to facts increasing the mandatory minimum,” subject to the same “exception ... for th

2024See also, e.g., Young v. United States, 305 A.3d 402 , 430 (D.C. 2023) (“[T]he invited error doctrine precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that [the party] . . . induced the trial court to take.”) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); Long v. United States, 910 A.2d 298, 305 (D.C. 2006) (applying plain-error standard to claim on appeal that reversal was required to remedy impermissible prosecutorial closing argument, where trial court responded to contemporaneous objection by giving cautionary instruction and defense counsel did not object to curative instruc

2024Ctr., 581 A.2d 759, 769 (D.C. 1990) (by acquiescing in different remedy, appellants “waived” argument that “mistrial was the only adequate remedy”). 30 In my view, the cited cases provide significant support for the idea that Mr. Petty forfeited his claim on appeal that the trial court’s remedy in this case was inadequate and that a mistrial was required.

2012See Mozee v. United States, 963 A.2d 151 , 161 n. 6 (D.C.2009) ("Generally, the invited error doctrine precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that he or she has induced the trial court to take.”).