invited error in North Carolina

2026“Thus, a defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review.” State v. Barber, 147 N.C.

2025But where a defendant fails to object to the jury instructions and instead expressly agrees with them, he waives any “right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain[-]error review.” State v. Barber, 147 N.C.

2025“Invited error is not ground for a new trial.” State v. Payne, 280 N.C. 170, 171 (1971).

2024Invited error is not ground for a new trial.” State v. Payne, 280 N.C. 170, 171 , 185 S.E.2d 101, 102 (1971).

2025We invoked the invited error doctrine in Frugard v. Pritchard, 338 N.C. 508 (1994), a personal injury case.

2014App. 30, 48 , 621 S.E.2d 19, 31 (2005) (holding the plaintiffs’ argument on appeal was precluded where the plaintiffs induced the challenged outcome at trial by giving the court the option to pursue it); Frugard v. Pritchard, 338 N.C. 508, 512 , 450 S.E.2d 744, 746 (1994) (under the doctrine of invited error, “a party may not complain of action which he induced.”).

2026See Sumner v. Sumner, 227 N.C. 610, 613 , 44 S.E.2d 40, 41 (1947) (“[U]nder the doctrine of invited error, a party cannot complain of a charge given at his request . . . or which is in substance the same as one asked by him . . . .”); N.C.

2026See Sumner v. Sumner, 227 N.C. 610, 613 , 44 S.E.2d 40, 41 (1947) (“[U]nder the doctrine of invited error, a party cannot complain of a charge given at his request . . . or which is in substance the same as one asked by him . . . .”); N.C.

2024Our Supreme Court held that the invited error doctrine applied where the “defendant unequivocally agreed that he offered [the witnesses’] testimony for purposes of corroboration.” Id. at 372–73, 474 S.E.2d at 318 .

2024Our Supreme Court held that the invited error doctrine applied where the “defendant unequivocally agreed that he offered [the witnesses’] testimony for purposes of corroboration.” Id. at 372–73, 474 S.E.2d at 318 .

2014In the context of jury instructions, a defendant who consents to the manner in which the trial court gives the instructions to the jury “will not be heard to complain on appeal when the trial court has instructed adequately on the law and in a manner requested by the defendant.” State v. -10- Wilkinson, 344 N.C. 198, 235-36 , 474 S.E.2d 375, 396 (1996) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[A] defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review.” State v. Hope, __ N.C.

2014In the context of jury instructions, a defendant who consents to the manner in which the trial court gives the instructions to the jury “will not be heard to complain on appeal when the trial court has instructed adequately on the law and in a manner requested by the defendant.” State v. -10- Wilkinson, 344 N.C. 198, 235-36 , 474 S.E.2d 375, 396 (1996) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[A] defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review.” State v. Hope, __ N.C.

2014App. __, __, 737 S.E.2d 108, 111 (2012), disc. review denied, 366 N.C. 438 , 736 S.E.2d 493 (2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2014App. at __, 737 S.E.2d at 111 (stating that “a defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review”); State v. Wilkinson, 344 N.C. 198, 235-36 , 474 S.E.2d 375, 396 (1996) (holding the defendant invited error when he consented to the manner in which the trial court gave the instructions to the jury and, when asked specifically, said, “[t]hat will be fine”).

2009Invited error is not ground for a new trial."); Overton v. Overton, 260 N.C. 139, 144-45 , 132 S.E.2d 349, 353 (1963) ("However, in this case respondents may not assert the objection that the court wrongfully placed the burden of proof of the issue upon them" since "[t]hey requested in their prayer for instructions that the burden of proof be so placed, and the court complied.").

2009Invited error is not ground for a new trial."); Overton v. Overton, 260 N.C. 139, 144-45 , 132 S.E.2d 349, 353 (1963) ("However, in this case respondents may not assert the objection that the court wrongfully placed the burden of proof of the issue upon them" since "[t]hey requested in their prayer for instructions that the burden of proof be so placed, and the court complied.").

2018App. 308 , 319, 651 S.E.2d 279 , 287 (2007) (citations omitted). "[A] defendant who invites error ... waive[s] his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review[,]" State v. Barber , 147 N.C.

2016"Statements elicited by a defendant on cross-examination are, even if error, invited error, by which a defendant cannot be prejudiced as a matter of law." Gobal, 186 N.C.App. at 319 , 651 S.E.2d at 287 ; State v. Steen, 226 N.C.App. 568 , 575, 739 S.E.2d 869 , 875 (2013) ("Statements elicited by a defendant on cross-examination are, even if error, invited error, by which a defendant cannot be prejudiced as a matter of law, and a defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review. " (internal citations, quotation m

2011Although the doctrine of invited error does not apply, as noted above, a whole record review will necessarily include consideration of the parties’ positions as to whether the instruction should be given. 360 N.C. 181, 197 , 624 S.E.2d 309, 322 (alteration in original) (internal citation and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 875 , 166 L.

2011Although the doctrine of invited error does not apply, as noted above, a whole record review will necessarily include consideration of the parties’ positions as to whether the instruction should be given. 360 N.C. 181, 197 , 624 S.E.2d 309, 322 (alteration in original) (internal citation and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 875 , 166 L.

2025App. 69, 74 (2001); see State v. White, 349 N.C. 535, 570 (1998) (“Where a defendant tells the trial court that he has no objection to an instruction, he [can]not . . . complain on appeal.”).

2022App. 69, 74 , 554 S.E.2d 413, 416 (2001) (citation omitted). ¶ 56 We find instructive and precedential our Supreme Court’s determination in State v. White, 349 N.C. 535 , 508 S.E.2d 253 (1998).

2024Second, in State v. Harding, this Court declined to apply the invited error doctrine and explicitly held that the defendant’s argument was not precluded from plain error review where the defendant “failed to object, actively participated in crafting the challenged instruction, and affirmed it was ‘fine.’ ” State v. Harding, 258 N.C.

2021App. 306 , 813 S.E.2d 254 (2018), “[t]he State argue[d] that defendant [wa]s precluded from plain error review in part under the invited-error doctrine because he failed to object, actively participated in crafting the challenged instruction, and affirmed it was ‘fine.’” Id. at 311 , 813 S.E.2d at 259 .

2017"Moreover, a defendant who invites error waives his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review." State v. Jones , 213 N.C.

2014The conduct of defendant in entering into a stipulation at trial and then seeking to repudiate it on appeal is more akin to invited error than plain error. “[A] defendant who invites error . . . waive[s] his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review.” State v. Jones, 213 N.C.

2025In any event, “[s]tatements elicited by a defendant on cross-examination are, even if error, invited error, by which a defendant cannot be prejudiced as a matter of law, and a defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review.” State v. Steen, 226 N.C.

2016"Statements elicited by a defendant on cross-examination are, even if error, invited error, by which a defendant cannot be prejudiced as a matter of law." Gobal, 186 N.C.App. at 319 , 651 S.E.2d at 287 ; State v. Steen, 226 N.C.App. 568 , 575, 739 S.E.2d 869 , 875 (2013) ("Statements elicited by a defendant on cross-examination are, even if error, invited error, by which a defendant cannot be prejudiced as a matter of law, and a defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review. " (internal citations, quotation m

2012Thus, a defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review.” State v. Goodwin, 190 N.C.

2012While, as the trial judge noted, defendant submitted sufficient evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the defense, to support a 308.45 instruction, “a defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error.” Goodwin, 190 N.C.

2011App. 718, 723-24 , 654 S.E.2d 28, 32-33 (2007) (following the Wilson court in holding that the defendant was entitled to relief even though the defendant “encouraged the trial court to submit the offense of sexual battery to the jury” which is not a lesser included offense of first degree rape, despite the invited error doctrine), disc. review denied, 362 N.C. 367 , 663 S.E.2d 432 (2008) and State v. Wilson, 128 N.C.

2011App. at 690-91 , 497 S.E.2d at 418-19 (even though the defendant requested the instruction of felonious restraint, which was found not to be a lesser included offense of the indicted offense of kidnapping, the Court held that defendant was entitled to relief, notwithstanding the invited error doctrine), are controlling on this issue and only seek “to pre *159 serve this issue for further appellate review.” Here, during the charge conference, defense counsel stated several times that possession with intent to manufacture cocaine was a lesser included offense of trafficking in cocaine and did no

2025App. 568, 575 (2013); see State v. Chatman, 308 N.C. 169, 177 (1983) (holding that defendant could not challenge testimony elicited during defense counsel’s cross-examination of State’s witness); N.C.G.S. § 15-1443(c) (defendant is not prejudiced “by error resulting from his own conduct.”).

2024Under plain error, “a defendant must demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 334 (2012) (citation omitted).

2024Under plain error, “a defendant must demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 334 (2012) (citation omitted).

2024In State v. Hooks, the defendant was given “numerous opportunities” to object to the proposed jury instructions and each time “indicated his satisfaction with the trial court’s instructions.” 353 N.C. 629, 633 , 548 S.E.2d 501, 505 (2001).

2024In State v. Hooks, the defendant was given “numerous opportunities” to object to the proposed jury instructions and each time “indicated his satisfaction with the trial court’s instructions.” 353 N.C. 629, 633 , 548 S.E.2d 501, 505 (2001).

2019App. ___, ___, 821 S.E.2d 259, 264-65 (2018) (quoting State v. Barber, 147 N.C.

2016See State v. Cook, 218 N.C.App. 245 , 249, 721 S.E.2d 741 , 745 ("[A] defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review." (citation and quotation marks omitted)), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, - -- N.C. ----, 724 S.E.2d 917 (2012). 1 Furthermore, Defendant's argument ignores the well-established principle that "the trial court is presumed to disregard incompetent evidence in making its decisions as a finder of fact." State v. Jones, 186 N.C.App. 405 , 411, 651 S.E.2d 589 , 593 (2007) ; see also In re

2016See State v. Cook, 218 N.C.App. 245 , 249, 721 S.E.2d 741 , 745 ("[A] defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review." (citation and quotation marks omitted)), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, - -- N.C. ----, 724 S.E.2d 917 (2012). 1 Furthermore, Defendant's argument ignores the well-established principle that "the trial court is presumed to disregard incompetent evidence in making its decisions as a finder of fact." State v. Jones, 186 N.C.App. 405 , 411, 651 S.E.2d 589 , 593 (2007) ; see also In re

2016See State v. Cook, 218 N.C.App. 245 , 249, 721 S.E.2d 741 , 745 ("[A] defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review." (citation and quotation marks omitted)), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, - -- N.C. ----, 724 S.E.2d 917 (2012). 1 Furthermore, Defendant's argument ignores the well-established principle that "the trial court is presumed to disregard incompetent evidence in making its decisions as a finder of fact." State v. Jones, 186 N.C.App. 405 , 411, 651 S.E.2d 589 , 593 (2007) ; see also In re

2016See State v. Cook, 218 N.C.App. 245 , 249, 721 S.E.2d 741 , 745 ("[A] defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review." (citation and quotation marks omitted)), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, - -- N.C. ----, 724 S.E.2d 917 (2012). 1 Furthermore, Defendant's argument ignores the well-established principle that "the trial court is presumed to disregard incompetent evidence in making its decisions as a finder of fact." State v. Jones, 186 N.C.App. 405 , 411, 651 S.E.2d 589 , 593 (2007) ; see also In re

2016See State v. Cook, 218 N.C.App. 245 , 249, 721 S.E.2d 741 , 745 ("[A] defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review." (citation and quotation marks omitted)), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, - -- N.C. ----, 724 S.E.2d 917 (2012). 1 Furthermore, Defendant's argument ignores the well-established principle that "the trial court is presumed to disregard incompetent evidence in making its decisions as a finder of fact." State v. Jones, 186 N.C.App. 405 , 411, 651 S.E.2d 589 , 593 (2007) ; see also In re

2016See State v. Cook, 218 N.C.App. 245 , 249, 721 S.E.2d 741 , 745 ("[A] defendant who invites error has waived his right to all appellate review concerning the invited error, including plain error review." (citation and quotation marks omitted)), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, - -- N.C. ----, 724 S.E.2d 917 (2012). 1 Furthermore, Defendant's argument ignores the well-established principle that "the trial court is presumed to disregard incompetent evidence in making its decisions as a finder of fact." State v. Jones, 186 N.C.App. 405 , 411, 651 S.E.2d 589 , 593 (2007) ; see also In re