invited error in Ohio

2026Invited error has been found “when a party has asked the court to take some action later claimed to be erroneous, or affirmatively consented to a procedure the trial judge proposed.” State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 , 324 (2000).

2026State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 324 , (2000). “[A]n invited error involves the exercise of trial Ross App. No. 25CA1 18 strategy, and the courts have repeatedly held that an appellate court will not question matters of trial strategy.” Doss at ¶ 9 , citing State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 157 (1998). {¶37} The invited error doctrine as applied to jury instructions is not limited to cases in which the appellant provides the erroneous instructions for the trial court’s use, although that is where it commonly arises.

2025Therefore, the invited error doctrine precludes Melendez from claiming prejudice caused by his own “‘outbursts and interruptions.’” Id., quoting State v. Gonzalez, 1998 WL 823737 , *5 (4th Dist.

2015Bitter v. Missig, 72 Ohio St.3d 249, 254 , 648 N.E.2d 1355 (1995). (“Under the invited-error doctrine, a party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced the trial court to make.”) {¶18} Mallet agreed to having the opportunity to file a post-hearing brief, and indeed filed a brief.

2026The State invited any error {¶16} Cooper argues that the State invited any error and therefore is not entitled to a reversal. 6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶17} The invited-error doctrine states that a party cannot “take advantage of an error that the party invited or induced the trial court to make.” State v. Cephas, 2019-Ohio-52, ¶ 24 (1st Dist.); see State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487 , 493 (1999) (“Even if the trial court had erred by instructing the jury, Bey could not complain because he invited the error by requesting the instruction.”); see also State v. Watson, 1997 Ohio App. L

2026“Under the invited error doctrine, ‘a party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.’” State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487, 493 (1999), quoting Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus.

2026“The doctrine of invited error specifies that a litigant may not ‘take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.’” State v. Garrett, 2022-Ohio-4218, ¶ 203 , quoting Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus.

2026The doctrine of invited error provides “that a litigant may not ‘take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.’” State v. Garrett, 2022-Ohio-4218, ¶ 203 , quoting Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. Lincoln—Mercury Div., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus.

2018Fowler v. Smith, 68 Ohio St.3d 357, 359 , 626 N.E.2d 950 (1994). {¶10} Even if we were to ignore the doctrine of invited error we would be limited to reviewing the alleged error for plain error due to Hopper’s failure to object.

2018Fowler v. Smith, 68 Ohio St.3d 357, 359 , 626 N.E.2d 950 (1994). {¶10} Even if we were to ignore the doctrine of invited error we would be limited to reviewing the alleged error for plain error due to Hopper’s failure to object.

2022Put another way, courts must ask “whether the victim, by such limited asportation or restraint, was subjected to a 2“‘Invited’ error is a doctrine that prevents a party from benefitting from an action that the party induced the court to make.” State v. James, 2015-Ohio-4987 , 53 N.E.3d 770 , ¶ 28 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Smith, 148 Ohio App.3d 274 , 2002-Ohio-3114 , 772 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.).

2022Put another way, courts must ask “whether the victim, by such limited asportation or restraint, was subjected to a 2“‘Invited’ error is a doctrine that prevents a party from benefitting from an action that the party induced the court to make.” State v. James, 2015-Ohio-4987 , 53 N.E.3d 770 , ¶ 28 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Smith, 148 Ohio App.3d 274 , 2002-Ohio-3114 , 772 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.).

2025Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2002-Ohio-4849 , 775 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 27 (discussing the doctrine of invited error), and State v. Robinson, 4th Dist.

2025Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2002-Ohio-4849 , 775 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 27 (discussing the doctrine of invited error), and State v. Robinson, 4th Dist.

2025Under the invited error doctrine, “a party is not permitted to take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced the court to make.” Davis v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 549, 552 (2001).

2024Under the doctrine of invited error, “a party is not permitted to take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced the court to make.” Davis v. Wolfe, 92 Ohio St.3d 549, 552 , 751 N.E.2d 1051 (2001).

2002Beaver v. Konteh (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 519, 521 , 700 N.E.2d 1256 (“ ‘Under the invited-error doctrine, a party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced the trial court to make’ ”). {¶7} Based on the foregoing, Johnson was not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

2002Beaver v. Konteh (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 519, 521 , 700 N.E.2d 1256 (“‘Under the invited-error doctrine, a party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced the trial court to make’ ”).

2025Ridge Ganley, Inc. v. Zinn, 31 Ohio St.3d 310, 313 (1987); State v. Reeder, 2025-Ohio-110, ¶¶ 12-13 (“The invited-error doctrine precludes a litigant from making an affirmative and apparent strategic decision at trial and then complaining on appeal that the result of that decision constitutes reversible error); State v. Savage, 2015- Ohio-4205, ¶ 18 (4th Dist.). {¶19} Likewise, the court conducted a thorough and proper Crim.

2025Ridge Ganley, Inc. v. Zinn, 31 Ohio St.3d 310, 313 (1987); State v. Reeder, 2025-Ohio-110, ¶¶ 12-13 (“The invited-error doctrine precludes a litigant from making an affirmative and apparent strategic decision at trial and then complaining on appeal that the result of that decision constitutes reversible error); State v. Savage, 2015- Ohio-4205, ¶ 18 (4th Dist.). {¶19} Likewise, the court conducted a thorough and proper Crim.

2026We conclude that Husband has invited this error. 6 {¶22} “The doctrine of invited error holds that a litigant may not take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.” (Internal quotations and citation omitted.) State v. Grether, 2019-Ohio-4243, ¶ 27 (9th Dist.).

2025Notably, the final jury instruction on obstructing official business, which also refers to a generic public official instead of a named person, mirrors Ms. Morgan’s proposed jury instruction almost verbatim. {¶22} Indeed, “under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may not “‘take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.’” State v. Ford, 2019-Ohio-4539 , ¶ 279, quoting Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Lincoln-Mercury Div., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. “‘[A] litigant cannot be permitted, either intentionally or [unintentionally] to

2024Tolle at ¶ 13 . {¶ 12} Ward argues that the trial court erred when it revoked his community control and imposed a prison sentence because “his community control violations, though several, were not significant enough to warrant prison.” But, at the sentencing hearing, Ward expressly “request[ed] that the Court impose a prison term and terminate [him] from community control.” For this reason, Ward’s arguments on appeal are precluded by the invited error doctrine, which provides that “a party will not be entitled to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced the trial court t

2023Under the invited-error doctrine, “[a] party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced the trial court to make.” Lester v. Leuck, 142 Ohio St. 91 , 50 N.E.2d 145 (1943), paragraph one of the syllabus.

2017Under the invited-error doctrine, “ ‘[a] party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.’ ” State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487 , 492-93, 1999-Ohio-283 , quoting Hal Artz Lincoln– Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Seiber, 56 Ohio St.3d 4, 17 (1990).

2008Nor can we say that it was the trial court's error to admit the video into evidence since it was offered by Mr. Janick. {¶ 39} "Under the invited error doctrine, `[a] party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.'" State v. Bey (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 487 , 493 , citing Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 20 , paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Seiber (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 4 , 17 . {¶ 40} As Mr. Janick's second assignment of error is without merit, we will now address his third assignment of error and analyz

2023Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d at 324 , quoting Carrothers v. Hunter, 23 Ohio St.2d 99, 103 , 262 N.E.2d 99 (1970).

2023The doctrine requires “more than mere ‘acquiescence in the trial judge’s erroneous conclusion.’” State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 324 , 738 N.E.2d 1178 (2000), quoting Corrothers v. Hunter, 23 Ohio St.2d 99, 103 , 262 N.E.2d 867 (1970).

2018The invited-error doctrine is not, however, rendered inapplicable when a party claims plain error: i. While invocation of the plain error doctrine is often justified in order to promote public confidence in the judicial process, "[it is doubtful that] the public's confidence in the jury system is undermined by requiring parties to live with the results of errors that they invited, even if the errors go to 'crucial matters.' In fact, the idea that parties must bear the cost of their own mistakes at trial is a central presupposition of our adversarial system of justice." Goldfuss v. Davidson , 7

2018The invited-error doctrine is not, however, rendered inapplicable when a party claims plain error: i. While invocation of the plain error doctrine is often justified in order to promote public confidence in the judicial process, "[it is doubtful that] the public's confidence in the jury system is undermined by requiring parties to live with the results of errors that they invited, even if the errors go to 'crucial matters.' In fact, the idea that parties must bear the cost of their own mistakes at trial is a central presupposition of our adversarial system of justice." Goldfuss v. Davidson , 7

2026State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 324 , (2000). “[A]n invited error involves the exercise of trial Ross App. No. 25CA1 18 strategy, and the courts have repeatedly held that an appellate court will not question matters of trial strategy.” Doss at ¶ 9 , citing State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 157 (1998). {¶37} The invited error doctrine as applied to jury instructions is not limited to cases in which the appellant provides the erroneous instructions for the trial court’s use, although that is where it commonly arises.

2022See State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 157 , 694 N.E.2d 932 , 1998-Ohio-370 .

2021We have found that “the invited error doctrine is applied when counsel is ‘actively responsible’ for the trial court’s error.” Id., quoting State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320, 324 , 2000-Ohio-183 , 738 N.E.2d 1178 .

1999See, also, State v. Kniep (1993), 87 Ohio App. 681 , 686 (holding that when testimony regarding a defendant's refusal to take a polygraph is elicited by the defense, the invited error doctrine prohibits the defendant from asserting the error on appeal), citing State v. Woodruff (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 326 , 327 ; State v. Hill (187), 37 Ohio App.3d 723 , 75-76 .

2006Cos. v. Marshall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 467 , 471 , 692 N.E.2d 198 , 202 , the court reiterated that `[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or or induced the trial court to make.' Accord State v. Wilson (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 381 , 396 , 659 N.E.2d 292 , 307 ; State ex rel.

2006Cos. v. Marshall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 467 , 471 , 692 N.E.2d 198 , 202 , the court reiterated that `[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party will not be permitted to take advantage of an error which he himself invited or or induced the trial court to make.' Accord State v. Wilson (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 381 , 396 , 659 N.E.2d 292 , 307 ; State ex rel.

2025Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2002-Ohio-4849 , 775 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 27 (discussing the doctrine of invited error), and State v. Robinson, 4th Dist.

2025Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio St.3d 404 , 2002-Ohio-4849 , 775 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 27 (discussing the doctrine of invited error), and State v. Robinson, 4th Dist.

2026The State argues that Willey invited the error by affirmatively agreeing that the jury instruction as given by the court was appropriate. {¶36} Under the invited error doctrine, “a party is not entitled to take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced.” State v. Doss, 2005-Ohio-775, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.), quoting State ex rel.

2020As the Eighth District noted in Doss, “[t]here is no point in having a stringent invited error doctrine only to allow it to be overcome by finding counsel ineffective for having invited the error.” Id. 34 Prejudice {¶150} Even if defense counsel committed error, Mr. Thompson was required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the error resulted in prejudice — the same deferential standard for reviewing plain error.

2025Notably, the final jury instruction on obstructing official business, which also refers to a generic public official instead of a named person, mirrors Ms. Morgan’s proposed jury instruction almost verbatim. {¶22} Indeed, “under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may not “‘take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.’” State v. Ford, 2019-Ohio-4539 , ¶ 279, quoting Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Lincoln-Mercury Div., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. “‘[A] litigant cannot be permitted, either intentionally or [unintentionally] to

2025Thank you. {¶24} Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant may not “take advantage of an error which he himself invited or induced.” State v. Ford, 2019-Ohio-4539, ¶ 279 , quoting Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Lincoln-Mercury Div., 28 Ohio St.3d 20 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. “‘[A] litigant cannot be permitted, either intentionally or [unintentionally] to induce or mislead a court into the commission of an error and then procure a reversal of the judgment for an error for which he was actively responsible.’” (Alteration in original.) State v. Grether, 2019-Oh

2020“Under the invited-error doctrine, a party is not entitled to take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced the trial court to make.” (Emphasis omitted.) State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914 , 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 243 , citing State ex rel.

2020“Under the invited-error doctrine, a party is not entitled to take advantage of an error that he himself invited or induced the trial court to make.” (Emphasis omitted.) State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914 , 12 N.E.3d 1112, ¶ 243 , citing State ex rel.

2026“Under the invited-error doctrine, a party cannot take advantage of an error that the party invited or induced the court to commit.” State v. LaMar, 2002-Ohio-2128, ¶ 102 , citing State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487 , 492-493 (1999).

2026“Under the invited-error doctrine, a party cannot take advantage of an error that the party invited or induced the court to commit.” State v. LaMar, 2002-Ohio-2128, ¶ 102 , citing State v. Bey, 85 Ohio St.3d 487, 492-493 (1999).

2016Summit No. 23119, 2006-Ohio-5210, ¶ 20-21 (applying the invited-error doctrine where the appellant erroneously suggested the manifest-injustice standard in his motion and the trial court used that standard in its 2 The time for filing a post-conviction relief petition has since been amended.

2016Summit No. 23119, 2006-Ohio-5210, ¶ 21 , quoting State ex rel Bitter v. Missig, 72 Ohio St.3d 249, 254 (1995).

2026“Invited error is an error that a party invited or induced the court to make.” State 5. v. Rosas, 2025-Ohio-5022, ¶ 31 (6th Dist.), citing Davis v. Wolfe, 2001-Ohio-1281 .

2025See, e.g., Davis v. Wolfe, 2001-Ohio-1281, ¶ 13 (the invited- error doctrine provides that “a party is not permitted to take advantage of an error that he himself invited”). {¶68} F.L.H.’s foster parents found Father’s aggressive and standoffish behavior not only disconcerting but something that caused them to be concerned for their (or F.L.H.’s) safety.