invited error in California

2026“The doctrine of invited error ‘is an “application of the estoppel principle” ’ and applies when a party invites the court or the jury to commit error.” (People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060 , 1072; accord Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 (Norgart).) “Under this doctrine, ‘ “when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error.” ’ ” (Midell, at p. 1072.) In order for the doctrine to apply, “ ‘[t]he record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical cho

2026“The doctrine of invited error ‘is an “application of the estoppel principle” ’ and applies when a party invites the court or the jury to commit error.” (People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060 , 1072; accord Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 (Norgart).) “Under this doctrine, ‘ “when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error.” ’ ” (Midell, at p. 1072.) In order for the doctrine to apply, “ ‘[t]he record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical cho

2026If defense counsel intentionally caused the trial court to err, the [defendant] cannot be heard to complain on appeal .… [I]t also must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake.’ In cases involving an action affirmatively taken by defense counsel, we have found a clearly implied tactical purpose to be sufficient to invoke the invited error rule.” (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49 .) In People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1138 , the defendant contended the trial court erred in ruling that he could be impeached with a prior

2026“The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging a jury instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has requested the instruction based on a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice.’ ” ’ ” (People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 138 .) The doctrine “'is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at his [or her] behest.” (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49 .) For the doctrine to apply, it “ ‘must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mis

2026The doctrine of invited error applies when “a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error.” (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 212 .) If any party induced the trial court’s error, it was the HA, who argued for an incorrect characterization of the independent judgment standard, not Harrington.

2026The doctrine of invited error applies when “a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error.” (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 212 .) If any party induced the trial court’s error, it was the HA, who argued for an incorrect characterization of the independent judgment standard, not Harrington.

2025(People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1263 .) Further, the invited error doctrine does not apply here when there is no evidence that defense counsel made a “tactical 6 decision to force the jury to an all-or-nothing choice.” (People v. Walker (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 111, 118 (Walker).) “The trial court’s duty to fully and correctly instruct the jury on the basic principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence in a criminal case is so important that it cannot be nullified by defense counsel’s negligent or mistaken failure to object to an erroneous instruction or the failure

2023(People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1263 .) Further, the invited error doctrine does not apply here when there is no evidence that defense counsel made a “tactical decision to force the jury to an all-or-nothing choice.” (People v. Walker (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 111, 118 (Walker).) “The trial court’s duty to fully and correctly instruct the jury on the basic principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence in a criminal case is so important that it cannot be nullified by defense counsel’s negligent or mistaken failure to object to an erroneous instruction or the failure t

2026(People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 831 .) In cases in which defense counsel took affirmative actions toward inviting the error, “a clearly implied tactical purpose” is sufficient to invoke the invited error doctrine.

2025In any event, whether or not defense counsel intended to violate the RJA with his commentary is not the focus of our inquiry: “[T]he record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical choice,” “it need not additionally show counsel correctly understood all the legal implications of the tactical choice.” (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 831 ; see also People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 970 [rejecting argument “that the invited error doctrine is inapplicable because counsel’s decision . . . was based 12 on a misunderstanding of the law”]; People v. Wader (1993) 5

2025(People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1263 .) Further, the invited error doctrine does not apply here when there is no evidence that defense counsel made a “tactical 6 decision to force the jury to an all-or-nothing choice.” (People v. Walker (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 111, 118 (Walker).) “The trial court’s duty to fully and correctly instruct the jury on the basic principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence in a criminal case is so important that it cannot be nullified by defense counsel’s negligent or mistaken failure to object to an erroneous instruction or the failure

2023(People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1263 .) Further, the invited error doctrine does not apply here when there is no evidence that defense counsel made a “tactical decision to force the jury to an all-or-nothing choice.” (People v. Walker (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 111, 118 (Walker).) “The trial court’s duty to fully and correctly instruct the jury on the basic principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence in a criminal case is so important that it cannot be nullified by defense counsel’s negligent or mistaken failure to object to an erroneous instruction or the failure t

2026Failure to object to a jury instruction affecting the substantial rights of the defendant does not result in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of the instruction. (§ 1259; People v. Cabral (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 748, 750 .) “The doctrine of invited error[, however,] applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his[, her, or their] 7 own conduct induces the commission of error.’ ” (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 , italics omitted.) But in the absence of a clear and deliberate tactical purpose by counsel in suggesting or acceding to an erroneous instructio

2026Failure to object to a jury instruction affecting the substantial rights of the defendant does not result in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of the instruction. (§ 1259; People v. Cabral (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 748, 750 .) “The doctrine of invited error[, however,] applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his[, her, or their] 7 own conduct induces the commission of error.’ ” (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 , italics omitted.) But in the absence of a clear and deliberate tactical purpose by counsel in suggesting or acceding to an erroneous instructio

2025In any event, whether or not defense counsel intended to violate the RJA with his commentary is not the focus of our inquiry: “[T]he record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical choice,” “it need not additionally show counsel correctly understood all the legal implications of the tactical choice.” (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 831 ; see also People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 970 [rejecting argument “that the invited error doctrine is inapplicable because counsel’s decision . . . was based 12 on a misunderstanding of the law”]; People v. Wader (1993) 5

2022(Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 .) The purpose of the invited error doctrine “is to prevent a party from misleading the trial court and then profiting therefrom in the appellate court.” (Ibid.) Invited error may preclude an argument that an instruction was erroneously omitted if defense counsel’s conduct shows he or she made a “conscious, deliberate tactical choice to forego a particular instruction.” (People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610 , 657–658 (internal quotation omitted).) 6 However, because important rights of the accused are at stake, it must be clear that counsel act

2024Torres timely appealed.7 DISCUSSION A. Torres’s Claims of Instructional Error Are Barred by the Doctrine of Invited Error and Are Meritless “Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error.” (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 212 ; see Davis v. Harano (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 688 , 692.) “The invited error doctrine applies ‘with particular force in the area of jury instructions.’” (Stevens v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.

2024Torres timely appealed.7 DISCUSSION A. Torres’s Claims of Instructional Error Are Barred by the Doctrine of Invited Error and Are Meritless “Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error.” (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 212 ; see Davis v. Harano (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 688 , 692.) “The invited error doctrine applies ‘with particular force in the area of jury instructions.’” (Stevens v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.

2025In any event, whether or not defense counsel intended to violate the RJA with his commentary is not the focus of our inquiry: “[T]he record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical choice,” “it need not additionally show counsel correctly understood all the legal implications of the tactical choice.” (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 831 ; see also People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 970 [rejecting argument “that the invited error doctrine is inapplicable because counsel’s decision . . . was based 12 on a misunderstanding of the law”]; People v. Wader (1993) 5

2023Indeed, the law is well established that a defendant generally cannot complain about the absence of instructions on a lesser included offense that he induced the trial court not to give in the first place (People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 969 [discussing the invited error doctrine]) and those inducements are made by counsel.

2026“The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging a jury instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has requested the instruction based on a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice.’ ” ’ ” (People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 138 .) The doctrine “'is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at his [or her] behest.” (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49 .) For the doctrine to apply, it “ ‘must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mis

2025(People v. Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303 , 318- 319.) “The invited error doctrine will not preclude appellate review if the record fails to show counsel had a tactical reason for requesting or acquiescing in the instruction. [Citation.]” (People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 28 .) Generally, absent a request from defendant, a trial court has no sua sponte duty to give a limiting instruction.

2026The invited error doctrine holds that a defendant may not complain “ ‘ “when, for tactical reasons, the defendant persuades a trial court not to instruct on a lesser included offense supported by the evidence.” ’ ” (Beames, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 927 ; see, e.g., People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 185 [defendant may not claim instructional error where counsel’s “agreement to the omission of the instructions was ‘for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake’ ”].) That is not what happened here.

2025Section 1111 provides: “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the to be sufficient to invoke the invited error rule.” (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49 ; accord, People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 104 .) As stated, counsel for McFadden asked the court to give CALCRIM No. 335, and he had a tactical reason for doing so: In his closing

2023Furthermore, Blum is estopped from raising this claim on appeal by the doctrine of invited error. “ ‘Under the doctrine of invited error, where a party, by his conduct, induces the commission of an error, he is estopped from asserting it as grounds for reversal. [Citations.] Similarly, an appellant may waive his right to attack error by expressly or impliedly agreeing at trial to the ruling or procedure objected to on appeal.’ ” (Mesecher v. County of San Diego (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1677, 1685 .) When minor’s counsel’s filed her application for payment of fees, Blum did not just fail to object

2023Furthermore, Blum is estopped from raising this claim on appeal by the doctrine of invited error. “ ‘Under the doctrine of invited error, where a party, by his conduct, induces the commission of an error, he is estopped from asserting it as grounds for reversal. [Citations.] Similarly, an appellant may waive his right to attack error by expressly or impliedly agreeing at trial to the ruling or procedure objected to on appeal.’ ” (Mesecher v. County of San Diego (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1677, 1685 .) When minor’s counsel’s filed her application for payment of fees, Blum did not just fail to object

2025(People v. Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303 , 318- 319.) “The invited error doctrine will not preclude appellate review if the record fails to show counsel had a tactical reason for requesting or acquiescing in the instruction. [Citation.]” (People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 28 .) Generally, absent a request from defendant, a trial court has no sua sponte duty to give a limiting instruction.

2024(People v. Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303, 319 .) A defendant who is barred from raising instructional error by the invited error doctrine may present a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

2023Analysis “The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging [on appeal] an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a ‘conscious and deliberate tactical choice’ to ‘request’ the instruction.” (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723 ; accord, People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1293 ; see also People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [“doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his own conduct induces the commission of error’ ”]; People v. Riazati (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 514, 529 .) Defendant, who in th

2017(See People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269 , 1319, 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 185 P.3d 727 [when counsel argued at length against reinstructing with the guilt phase instructions, defendant's claim on appeal that the court erred by not rereading the guilt phase instructions was barred by the invited error doctrine].) But defendant's claim is that the court erred by leaving it to the jury to decide which of *424 the guilt phase instructions to apply at the penalty phase.

2022Under the doctrine of invited error, “on appeal a litigant cannot object to the admission of incompetent evidence offered by him.” (Jentick v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 117, 121 ; accord, People v. Flinner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 686, 723 [“[Defendant] cannot claim error in admission of evidence he elicited”].) Even where a party does not invite error, he may forfeit an evidentiary objection by failing to raise it in the 6 (See Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th at 618-623 ; In re Miller (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 960, 964-965, 975-977 ; Scoggins, supra, 9 Cal.5th 667 , 676-683.) 17 trial court.

2022Under the doctrine of invited error, “on appeal a litigant cannot object to the admission of incompetent evidence offered by him.” (Jentick v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 117, 121 ; accord, People v. Flinner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 686, 723 [“[Defendant] cannot claim error in admission of evidence he elicited”].) Even where a party does not invite error, he may forfeit an evidentiary objection by failing to raise it in the 6 (See Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th at 618-623 ; In re Miller (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 960, 964-965, 975-977 ; Scoggins, supra, 9 Cal.5th 667 , 676-683.) 17 trial court.

2023The record must reflect that counsel had a deliberate tactical purpose.’ [Citation.]” (Bunyard, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1234 .) “Despite the circumstance that it is the court that is vested with authority to determine whether to instruct on a lesser included offense, the doctrine of invited error still applies if the court accedes to a defense attorney’s tactical decision to request that lesser included offense instructions not be given.

2023(Bunyard, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1234 .) The doctrine of invited error forecloses defendant relief on this issue. 5.

2025Having made this high-risk bargain in the hope of obtaining a favorable verdict against State Farm based on the deemed admissions, plaintiffs cannot now challenge the bargained-for instruction after receiving an unfavorable verdict against both defendants. “‘Where a party by his conduct induces the commission of error, he is estopped from asserting it as a ground for reversal’ on appeal.” (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 ; accord, Doe WHBE 3 v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1135 , 1152.) “This application of the estoppel principle is generally known as the doc

2025Having made this high-risk bargain in the hope of obtaining a favorable verdict against State Farm based on the deemed admissions, plaintiffs cannot now challenge the bargained-for instruction after receiving an unfavorable verdict against both defendants. “‘Where a party by his conduct induces the commission of error, he is estopped from asserting it as a ground for reversal’ on appeal.” (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 403 ; accord, Doe WHBE 3 v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1135 , 1152.) “This application of the estoppel principle is generally known as the doc

2023“The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a ‘conscious and deliberate tactical choice’ to ‘request’ the instruction.”5 (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723 .) Petitioner argues invited error should no longer be applied because “the law changed after [his] trial, rendering his lawyer’s invited instruction entirely illegal.” He concedes “the parties apparently recognized that defense counsel’s proposed instruction might violate Ireland,” and argues “invited error cannot operate to prospectively wai

2023The “doctrine of invited error bars [an appellant] from challenging a jury instruction given by the trial court when the [appellant] has requested the instruction based on a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice.” ’ ” ’ ” 15 (People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 138 ; People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723-724 .) The doctrine “ ‘ “ applies ‘with particular force in the area of jury instructions . . . .’ ” ’ ” (People v. Mason (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 818, 823 ; see also Regalado v. Callaghan (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 582, 592 .) We agree with the People that Silva may not acquiesce

2025(Ibid.) Accordingly, the doctrine of invited error requires “affirmative conduct demonstrating a deliberate tactical choice on the part of the challenging party.” (Huffman v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 679, 706 .) Such affirmative conduct appears on the record before us.

2025(Ibid.) Accordingly, the doctrine of invited error requires “affirmative conduct demonstrating a deliberate tactical choice on the part of the challenging party.” (Huffman v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 679, 706 .) Such affirmative conduct appears on the record before us.

2024Given the attorney’s ethical duty of loyalty to the client, it is ‘not outside the range of competent attorney actions to fail to present mitigating evidence when the 9 defendant adamantly endorses that position.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.; accord, People v. Brown (2014) 59 Cal.4th 86 , 112–113.) The court alternatively concluded that even if defense counsel acted improperly, the invited error doctrine “estop[ped] a defendant from claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s acts or omissions in conformance with the defendant’s own request[s].” (Lang, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 1032 .)

2023“The invited- error doctrine operates . . . to estop a defendant from claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s acts or omissions in conformance with the defendant’s own requests.” (People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1032 .) Second, trial counsel also testified that his office would not authorize DNA testing of the rifle because it was not “the gun that was used in the case.” Defendant seems to misunderstand trial counsel’s explanation.

2024Co. 20 (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 984, 1000 [“ ‘Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error.’ [Citation.] ...

2024Co. 20 (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 984, 1000 [“ ‘Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error.’ [Citation.] ...

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

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

2026At trial, defense counsel expressly rejected those theories as inapplicable to count two and instead denied that Fechner used any force against Amanda that night. “ ‘When a defense attorney makes a “conscious, deliberate tactical choice” to [request or] forego a particular instruction, the invited error doctrine bars an argument on appeal that the instruction was [given or] omitted in error.’ ” (People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 675 .) We also agree with the People that the alternative defense theories, including defense of property (otherwise not included in the application of the inv

2023The California Supreme Court has explained that the invited error doctrine bars a claim of instructional error on appeal only “ ‘[w]hen a defense attorney makes a “conscious, deliberate tactical choice” to [request or] forego a particular instruction . . . .’ ” (People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 675 .) “The invited error doctrine will not preclude appellate review if the 18 record fails to show counsel had a tactical reason for requesting or acquiescing in the instruction.” (People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 28 .) The Court has also applied this principle to a defendant’s failure to

2026“The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging a jury instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has requested the instruction based on a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice.’ ” ’ ” (People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 138 .) The doctrine “'is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at his [or her] behest.” (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49 .) For the doctrine to apply, it “ ‘must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mis

2026(People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 138 [“The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging a jury instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has requested the instruction based on a ‘ “ ‘ “conscious and deliberate tactical choice.” ’ ” ’ ”]; People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49 [“In cases involving an action affirmatively taken by defense counsel, we have found a clearly implied tactical purpose to be sufficient to invoke the invited error rule.”].) Nonetheless, Porter argues the request for the prescriptive easement instruction constituted inef

2025Accordingly, the doctrine of invited error applies, which “is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at his behest.” (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49 .) Because Mancha invited the error that he claims the trial court committed when it failed to instruct on battery as a lesser included offense, “he cannot complain on appeal of the court’s failure to give the instruction.” (People v. Horning (2004) 34 Cal.4th 871, 906 .) We accordingly reject Mancha’s argument that reversal is warranted due to the trial co

2025Accordingly, the doctrine of invited error applies, which “is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at his behest.” (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49 .) Because Mancha invited the error that he claims the trial court committed when it failed to instruct on battery as a lesser included offense, “he cannot complain on appeal of the court’s failure to give the instruction.” (People v. Horning (2004) 34 Cal.4th 871, 906 .) We accordingly reject Mancha’s argument that reversal is warranted due to the trial co

2023However, “ ‘the doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a “conscious and deliberate tactical choice” to “request” the instruction.’ ” (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 970 , italics added.) Defendant here did not actually request the bracketed portion of CALCRIM No. 3470 be removed from the instruction, but rather agreed with the court that it should be removed. 9 justified in acting in (self-defense . . .)” The trial court was not required to give this portion of the instruction because there was no

2021Joseph’s counsel specifically requested CALCRIM No. 3517 and did not ask for CALCRIM No. 640. “ ‘The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a “conscious and deliberate tactical choice” to “request” the instruction.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 970 .) It also applies to defense counsel’s tactical decision to forego a particular instruction.

2017If defense counsel intentionally caused the trial court to err, the appellant cannot be heard to complain on appeal.' " ( People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 , 931, 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 .) Nevertheless, the invited error doctrine does not apply where the trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct. ( People v. Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303 , 319, 78 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 455 P.2d 153 .) "The trial court is charged with instructing upon every theory of the case supported by substantial evidence, including defenses that are not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case." ( *

2017If defense counsel intentionally caused the trial court to err, the appellant cannot be heard to complain on appeal.' " ( People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 , 931, 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 .) Nevertheless, the invited error doctrine does not apply where the trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct. ( People v. Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303 , 319, 78 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 455 P.2d 153 .) "The trial court is charged with instructing upon every theory of the case supported by substantial evidence, including defenses that are not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case." ( *