invited error in Mississippi

2024John, 856 So. 2d 304, 314 (Miss. 2003) (“An appellant cannot complain of alleged errors which he invited or induced.” (citing Caston v. State, 823 So. 2d 473, 502 (Miss. 2002))); see also Thomas v. State, 249 So. 3d 331, 348-350 (Miss. 2018) (The Court held that the doctrine of invited error applies because this was “a case in which the error might more appropriately be referred to as ‘demanded’ by the defendant rather than ‘invited.’”).

2021Under the invited-error doctrine, “a defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself.” Thomas v. State, 249 So. 3d 331, 347 (¶55) (Miss. 2018).

2025Rather, a “less-than-strict application of the invited-error rule to jury instructions ‘would put a premium on defendants misleading trial courts . . . .’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Henderson, 792 P.2d at 515 ). ¶28.

2018People v. Zapata , 779 P.2d 1307 , 1308-09 (Colo. 1989) ("The allegation of constitutional error in the jury instruction does not require us to abandon the strict preclusion of review of invited error"); State v. Madigosky , 291 Conn. 28 , 966 A.2d 730 (2009) ; State v. Perdue , 813 P.2d 1201 , 1206 (Utah App. 1991) ; State v. Henderson , 114 Wash.2d 867 , 792 P.2d 514 , 515 (1990) (recognizing that less-than-strict application of the invited-error rule to jury instructions "would put a premium on defendants misleading trial courts...."); United States v. Askew , 403 F.3d 496 , 505-06 (7th Cir

2025Rather, a “less-than-strict application of the invited-error rule to jury instructions ‘would put a premium on defendants misleading trial courts . . . .’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Henderson, 792 P.2d at 515 ). ¶28.

2018People v. Zapata , 779 P.2d 1307 , 1308-09 (Colo. 1989) ("The allegation of constitutional error in the jury instruction does not require us to abandon the strict preclusion of review of invited error"); State v. Madigosky , 291 Conn. 28 , 966 A.2d 730 (2009) ; State v. Perdue , 813 P.2d 1201 , 1206 (Utah App. 1991) ; State v. Henderson , 114 Wash.2d 867 , 792 P.2d 514 , 515 (1990) (recognizing that less-than-strict application of the invited-error rule to jury instructions "would put a premium on defendants misleading trial courts...."); United States v. Askew , 403 F.3d 496 , 505-06 (7th Cir

2025Before closing, it is worth pointing out that, in the past, we have been reticent to apply the invited error doctrine to “a basic constitutional right.” Livingston v. State, 525 So. 2d 1300, 1306 (Miss. 1988) (quoting West v. State, 485 So. 2d 681, 688 (Miss. 1985)), overruled on other grounds by Wright v. State, 958 So. 2d 158, 166 (¶ 21) (Miss. 2007).

2006Livingston , 525 So.2d at 1306 ; West v. State , 485 So.2d 681 , 688 (Miss. 1985). ¶ 29.

2018People v. Zapata , 779 P.2d 1307 , 1308-09 (Colo. 1989) ("The allegation of constitutional error in the jury instruction does not require us to abandon the strict preclusion of review of invited error"); State v. Madigosky , 291 Conn. 28 , 966 A.2d 730 (2009) ; State v. Perdue , 813 P.2d 1201 , 1206 (Utah App. 1991) ; State v. Henderson , 114 Wash.2d 867 , 792 P.2d 514 , 515 (1990) (recognizing that less-than-strict application of the invited-error rule to jury instructions "would put a premium on defendants misleading trial courts...."); United States v. Askew , 403 F.3d 496 , 505-06 (7th Cir

2018People v. Zapata , 779 P.2d 1307 , 1308-09 (Colo. 1989) ("The allegation of constitutional error in the jury instruction does not require us to abandon the strict preclusion of review of invited error"); State v. Madigosky , 291 Conn. 28 , 966 A.2d 730 (2009) ; State v. Perdue , 813 P.2d 1201 , 1206 (Utah App. 1991) ; State v. Henderson , 114 Wash.2d 867 , 792 P.2d 514 , 515 (1990) (recognizing that less-than-strict application of the invited-error rule to jury instructions "would put a premium on defendants misleading trial courts...."); United States v. Askew , 403 F.3d 496 , 505-06 (7th Cir

2018People v. Zapata , 779 P.2d 1307 , 1308-09 (Colo. 1989) ("The allegation of constitutional error in the jury instruction does not require us to abandon the strict preclusion of review of invited error"); State v. Madigosky , 291 Conn. 28 , 966 A.2d 730 (2009) ; State v. Perdue , 813 P.2d 1201 , 1206 (Utah App. 1991) ; State v. Henderson , 114 Wash.2d 867 , 792 P.2d 514 , 515 (1990) (recognizing that less-than-strict application of the invited-error rule to jury instructions "would put a premium on defendants misleading trial courts...."); United States v. Askew , 403 F.3d 496 , 505-06 (7th Cir

2018People v. Zapata , 779 P.2d 1307 , 1308-09 (Colo. 1989) ("The allegation of constitutional error in the jury instruction does not require us to abandon the strict preclusion of review of invited error"); State v. Madigosky , 291 Conn. 28 , 966 A.2d 730 (2009) ; State v. Perdue , 813 P.2d 1201 , 1206 (Utah App. 1991) ; State v. Henderson , 114 Wash.2d 867 , 792 P.2d 514 , 515 (1990) (recognizing that less-than-strict application of the invited-error rule to jury instructions "would put a premium on defendants misleading trial courts...."); United States v. Askew , 403 F.3d 496 , 505-06 (7th Cir

2018People v. Bender , 20 Ill.2d 45 , 169 N.E.2d 328 , 333 (1960) (declining to apply the invited-error doctrine "[w]hen the State, the defense, and the court, all proceeded on an entirely erroneous belief ...."); State v. Dozier , 163 W.Va. 192 , 255 S.E.2d 552 , 555 (1979) ("[I]t would be a travesty of justice to hold the accused invited the error ... [as] it clearly appears ... that the instruction was an unfortunate mistake.").

2018People v. Bender , 20 Ill.2d 45 , 169 N.E.2d 328 , 333 (1960) (declining to apply the invited-error doctrine "[w]hen the State, the defense, and the court, all proceeded on an entirely erroneous belief ...."); State v. Dozier , 163 W.Va. 192 , 255 S.E.2d 552 , 555 (1979) ("[I]t would be a travesty of justice to hold the accused invited the error ... [as] it clearly appears ... that the instruction was an unfortunate mistake.").

2018People v. Bender , 20 Ill.2d 45 , 169 N.E.2d 328 , 333 (1960) (declining to apply the invited-error doctrine "[w]hen the State, the defense, and the court, all proceeded on an entirely erroneous belief ...."); State v. Dozier , 163 W.Va. 192 , 255 S.E.2d 552 , 555 (1979) ("[I]t would be a travesty of justice to hold the accused invited the error ... [as] it clearly appears ... that the instruction was an unfortunate mistake.").

2018People v. Bender , 20 Ill.2d 45 , 169 N.E.2d 328 , 333 (1960) (declining to apply the invited-error doctrine "[w]hen the State, the defense, and the court, all proceeded on an entirely erroneous belief ...."); State v. Dozier , 163 W.Va. 192 , 255 S.E.2d 552 , 555 (1979) ("[I]t would be a travesty of justice to hold the accused invited the error ... [as] it clearly appears ... that the instruction was an unfortunate mistake.").

2025Thomas, 249 So. 3d at 347 (citing Harris, 861 So. 2d at 1015 ). ¶27.

2019"It is axiomatic that a defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself." Thomas v. State , 249 So.3d 331 , 347 (¶ 55) (Miss. 2018) (internal quotation omitted); see also Harris v. State , 861 So.2d 1003 , 1015 (¶ 24) (Miss. 2003) ; Buford v. State , 372 So.2d 254 , 256 (Miss. 1979) (applying the invited-error doctrine to jury instructions).

2023The Supreme Court has explained that the purpose of the invited-error rule is to “bind trial counsel to strategic decisions inducing judicial rulings with the purpose of obtaining favorable judgments for their client” and “also defeats the disreputable strategy aimed at requesting a judge act in a particular way to salt the record with error as an end in itself, thereby providing potential grounds for reversal of an adverse judgment.” Id. at (¶56). ¶38.

2022The supreme court has explained that the purpose of the invited-error rule is to “bind[] trial counsel to strategic decisions inducing 19 judicial rulings with the purpose of obtaining favorable judgments for their client[]” and “also defeats the disreputable strategy aimed at requesting a judge act in a particular way to salt the record with error as an end in itself, thereby providing potential grounds for reversal of an adverse judgment.” Id. at (¶56). ¶48.

2025Before closing, it is worth pointing out that, in the past, we have been reticent to apply the invited error doctrine to “a basic constitutional right.” Livingston v. State, 525 So. 2d 1300, 1306 (Miss. 1988) (quoting West v. State, 485 So. 2d 681, 688 (Miss. 1985)), overruled on other grounds by Wright v. State, 958 So. 2d 158, 166 (¶ 21) (Miss. 2007).

2006Livingston , 525 So.2d at 1306 ; West v. State , 485 So.2d 681 , 688 (Miss. 1985). ¶ 29.

2025“It is axiomatic that ‘a defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself.’” Thomas, 249 So. 3d at 347 (emphasis added) (quoting Galloway, 122 So. 3d at 645 ; O’Connor v. State, 120 So. 3d at 397 ; Singleton, 518 So. 2d at 655 ).

2023“It is axiomatic that a defendant cannot complain on appeal of alleged errors invited or induced by himself.” Thomas v. State, 249 So. 3d 331, 347 (¶55) (Miss. 2018); see also Galloway v. State, 122 So. 3d 614, 645 (¶87) (Miss. 2013); O’Connor v. State, 120 So. 3d 390, 397 (¶17) (Miss. 2013).

2025Or as one appellate court aptly put it, the invited-error doctrine prevents defense counsel from “sandbag[ging] the trial judge by requesting and approving an instruction they know . . . will result in an automatic reversal, if given.” Rosen v. State, 940 So. 2d 1155, 1161 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006) (second alteration in original) (quoting Weber v. State, 602 So. 2d 1316, 1319 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992)).

2025Or as one appellate court aptly put it, the invited-error doctrine prevents defense counsel from “sandbag[ging] the trial judge by requesting and approving an instruction they know . . . will result in an automatic reversal, if given.” Rosen v. State, 940 So. 2d 1155, 1161 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006) (second alteration in original) (quoting Weber v. State, 602 So. 2d 1316, 1319 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992)).

2025Before closing, it is worth pointing out that, in the past, we have been reticent to apply the invited error doctrine to “a basic constitutional right.” Livingston v. State, 525 So. 2d 1300, 1306 (Miss. 1988) (quoting West v. State, 485 So. 2d 681, 688 (Miss. 1985)), overruled on other grounds by Wright v. State, 958 So. 2d 158, 166 (¶ 21) (Miss. 2007).

2024John, 856 So. 2d 304, 314 (Miss. 2003) (“An appellant cannot complain of alleged errors which he invited or induced.” (citing Caston v. State, 823 So. 2d 473, 502 (Miss. 2002))); see also Thomas v. State, 249 So. 3d 331, 348-350 (Miss. 2018) (The Court held that the doctrine of invited error applies because this was “a case in which the error might more appropriately be referred to as ‘demanded’ by the defendant rather than ‘invited.’”).

2024John, 856 So. 2d 304, 314 (Miss. 2003) (“An appellant cannot complain of alleged errors which he invited or induced.” (citing Caston v. State, 823 So. 2d 473, 502 (Miss. 2002))); see also Thomas v. State, 249 So. 3d 331, 348-350 (Miss. 2018) (The Court held that the doctrine of invited error applies because this was “a case in which the error might more appropriately be referred to as ‘demanded’ by the defendant rather than ‘invited.’”).

2021The supreme court has explained that the purpose of this doctrine is to “bind trial counsel to strategic decisions inducing judicial rulings with the purpose of obtaining favorable judgments for their client[]” and to prevent trial counsel from “requesting [that] a judge act in a particular way to salt the record with error as an end in itself, thereby providing potential grounds for reversal of an adverse judgment.” Id. at (¶56) (quoting State v. Hargrove, 293 P.3d 787, 790 (Kan.