party invited error in Tennessee

2006See T.R.A.P. 36(a), Advisory Commission Comments (“The last sentence of this rule is a statement of the accepted principle that a party is not entitled to relief if the party invited error, waived an error, or failed to take whatever steps were reasonably available to cure an error.”); see also State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279-80 (Tenn.2000); Hill v. State, 513 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Tenn.Crim.App.1974) (stating that to allow evidentiary questions to be raised at anytime would “undercut the very function of the trial process, for it would become a tactical matter of defense to allow a bit of const

2006See T.R.A.P. 36(a), Advisory Commission Comments ("The last sentence of this rule is a statement of the accepted principle that a party is not entitled to relief if the party invited error, waived an error, or failed to take whatever steps were reasonably available to cure an error."); see also State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279-80 (Tenn.2000); Hill v. State, 513 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Tenn.Crim.App.1974) (stating that to allow evidentiary questions to be raised at anytime would "undercut the very function of the trial process, for it would become a tactical matter of defense to allow a bit of const

2006See T.R.A.P. 36(a), Advisory Commission Comments (“The last sentence of this rule is a statement of the accepted principle that a party is not entitled to relief if the party invited error, waived an error, or failed to take whatever steps were reasonably available to cure an error.”); see also State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279-80 (Tenn.2000); Hill v. State, 513 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Tenn.Crim.App.1974) (stating that to allow evidentiary questions to be raised at anytime would “undercut the very function of the trial process, for it would become a tactical matter of defense to allow a bit of const

2006See T.R.A.P. 36(a), Advisory Commission Comments ("The last sentence of this rule is a statement of the accepted principle that a party is not entitled to relief if the party invited error, waived an error, or failed to take whatever steps were reasonably available to cure an error."); see also State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279-80 (Tenn.2000); Hill v. State, 513 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Tenn.Crim.App.1974) (stating that to allow evidentiary questions to be raised at anytime would "undercut the very function of the trial process, for it would become a tactical matter of defense to allow a bit of const

2009App. P. 36(a), Advisory Commission Cmts. (“The last sentence of this rule is a statement of the accepted principle that a party is not entitled to relief if the party invited error, waived an error, or failed to take whatever steps were reasonably available to cure an error.”); see also State v. Pritchett, 621 S.W.2d 127, 135 (Tenn. 1981) (citing State v. Sutton, 562 S.W.2d 820 (Tenn. 1978) (explaining that “[w]ithout contemporaneous objection [to improper questions], the error, if any, is waived”).

2006App. P. 36(a), Advisory Commission Cmts. (“The last sentence of this rule is a statement of the accepted principle that a party is not entitled to relief if the party invited error, waived an error, or failed to take whatever steps were reasonably available to cure an error.”); see also State v. Pritchett, 621 S.W.2d 127, 135 (Tenn. 1981) (citing State v. Sutton, 562 S.W.2d 820 (Tenn. 1978)) (explaining that “[w]ithout contemporaneous objection [to improper questions], the error, if any, is waived”).

2009App. P. 36(a), Advisory Commission Cmts. (“The last sentence of this rule is a statement of the accepted principle that a party is not entitled to relief if the party invited error, waived an error, or failed to take whatever steps were reasonably available to cure an error.”); see also State v. Pritchett, 621 S.W.2d 127, 135 (Tenn. 1981) (citing State v. Sutton, 562 S.W.2d 820 (Tenn. 1978) (explaining that “[w]ithout contemporaneous objection [to improper questions], the error, if any, is waived”).

2006App. P. 36(a), Advisory Commission Cmts. (“The last sentence of this rule is a statement of the accepted principle that a party is not entitled to relief if the party invited error, waived an error, or failed to take whatever steps were reasonably available to cure an error.”); see also State v. Pritchett, 621 S.W.2d 127, 135 (Tenn. 1981) (citing State v. Sutton, 562 S.W.2d 820 (Tenn. 1978)) (explaining that “[w]ithout contemporaneous objection [to improper questions], the error, if any, is waived”).

2023In addition, “[a]s a general rule, a party may not litigate an issue on one ground, abandon that ground post-trial, and assert a new basis or ground on appeal.” State v. Leach 148 S.W.3d 42, 55 (Tenn. 2004). “[A] party is bound by the ground asserted when making an objection.

2012To the same effect is the holding of Levine v. March, 266 S.W.3d 426, 440 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007) (parties cannot obtain relief based on an alleged error they could have prevented).

2004App. P. 36(a), Advisory Commission Cmts. (“The last sentence of this rule is a statement of the accepted principle that a party is not entitled to relief if the party invited error, waived an error, or failed to take whatever steps were reasonably available to cure an error.”); see also State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279-80 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Little, 854 S.W.2d 643, 651 (Tenn. Crim.