invited error in Arizona

2020We conclude that the court misapplied the doctrine as its decision conflicts with invited error jurisprudence from our Court and the court of appeals. ¶15 “The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” State v. Rushing, 243 Ariz. 212 , 217 ¶ 14 (2017); see also State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564 , 566 ¶ 11 (2001).

2020See Logan, 200 Ariz. at 566 ¶ 11 (holding the court must look to the “source of the error, which must be the party urging the error” (emphasis added)); Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 145 ¶ 38 (“‘Invited error’ occurs when the [appealing party] is the source of that error.”).

2020Id.; cf. Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 145 ¶ 38 (noting that the invited error doctrine precludes appellate relief even when error is fundamental and prejudicial). ¶21 Thus, in the context of stipulated plea agreements, the invited error doctrine should apply only where “the party took independent affirmative unequivocal action to initiate the error [or actively defended the error] and did not merely fail to object to the error or merely acquiesce in it.” Lucero, 223 Ariz. at 136 ¶ 21.

2019To determine whether the invited error doctrine should preclude a party from raising an allegation of error on appeal, courts “must look ‘to the source of the error, which must be the party urging the error.’” State v. Lucero, 223 Ariz. 129, 135, ¶ 17 (App. 2009) (quoting Logan, 200 Ariz. at 566, ¶ 11 ); see also Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 145, 4 State v. Donald, 198 Ariz. 406, 418, ¶ 46 (App. 2000). 12 STATE v. MENDOZA Opinion of the Court ¶ 38 (“‘Invited error’ occurs when the defendant is the source of that error.”). ¶21 We reject the State’s assertion that Mendoza’s request to “discuss the ca

2017See State v. Pandeli, 215 Ariz. 514 , 528 ¶ 50, 161 P.3d 557, 571 (2007) (discussing the invited error doctrine).

2017See State v. Pandeli, 215 Ariz. 514 , 528 ¶ 50, 161 P.3d 557, 571 (2007) (discussing the invited error doctrine).

2020The doctrine is intended to “prevent a party from ‘inject[ing] error in the record and then profit[ing] from it on appeal.’” Id. at 566, ¶ 11 (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Tassler, 159 Ariz. 183, 185 (App. 1988)).

2019The purpose of this doctrine is to “prevent a party from ‘inject[ing] error in the record and then profit[ing] from it on appeal.’” Id. at 566, ¶ 11 (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Tassler, 159 Ariz. 183, 185 (App. 1988)).

2011“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” Schlecht v. Schiel, 76 Ariz. 214, 220 , 262 P.2d 252, 256 (1953); see also State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, 93 P.3d 1061 , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal).

2011“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” Schlecht v. Schiel, 76 Ariz. 214, 220 , 262 P.2d 252, 256 (1953); see also State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, 93 P.3d 1061 , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal).

2024Mental Health No. MH2009-002120, 225 Ariz. 284 , 287 ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“We generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, argued for the first time on appeal.”); State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n.7 ¶ 59 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal); In re MH–1140–6–93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 (App. 1993) (finding alleged due process violations were waived as arguments because they were raised for the first time on appeal).

2011“By the rule of invited error, one who deliberately leads the court to take certain action may not upon appeal assign that action as error.” Schlecht v. Schiel, 76 Ariz. 214, 220 , 262 P.2d 252, 256 (1953); see also State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, 93 P.3d 1061 , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal).

2009“The invited error doctrine applies to situations where evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence relevant or require some response or rebuttal.” State v. Wilson, 185 Ariz. 254, 259 , 914 P.2d 1346, 1351 (1995).

2009“The invited error doctrine applies to situations where evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence relevant or require some response or rebuttal.” State v. Wilson, 185 Ariz. 254, 259 , 914 P.2d 1346, 1351 (1995).

1996Invited error occurs when “evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence relevant or require some response or rebuttal.” Wilson, 185 Ariz. at 258 , 914 P.2d at 1350 , citing State v. Woods, 141 Ariz. 446, 455 , 687 P.2d 1201, 1210 (1984).

1996Invited error occurs when “evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence relevant or require some response or rebuttal.” Wilson, 185 Ariz. at 258 , 914 P.2d at 1350 , citing State v. Woods, 141 Ariz. 446, 455 , 687 P.2d 1201, 1210 (1984).

2025See State v. Robertson, 249 Ariz. 256, 260, ¶ 15 (2020) (“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” (citation modified)).

2023See State v. Dixon, 226 Ariz. 545, 554, ¶ 44 (2011); accord State v. Robertson, 249 Ariz. 256, 260, ¶ 15 (2020) (“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” (quotation omitted)). ¶27 Second, Kemp contends his counsel did not “help[] him to navigate [the] legal process.” Ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised on direct appeal, however; it must be raised in a separate post- conviction proceeding.

2001In response, the State again asserted that any error was invited and, alternatively, that the error was not fundamental. ¶ 7 Relying on State v. Diaz, 168 Ariz. 363, 365 , 813 P.2d 728, 730 (1991), the court of appeals reversed the trial court, finding the invited error doctrine inapplicable and the error fundamental.

2001In response, the State again asserted that any error was invited and, alternatively, that the error was not fundamental. ¶ 7 Relying on State v. Diaz, 168 Ariz. 363, 365 , 813 P.2d 728, 730 (1991), the court of appeals reversed the trial court, finding the invited error doctrine inapplicable and the error fundamental.

2024Evid. (“Rule”) 103(a)(1) (a party may only claim error in a ruling to admit evidence if the party “timely objects . . . and states the specific ground unless it was apparent from the context.”). ¶12 Under Rule 403, a court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Under Rule 404(b)(1), “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” ¶13 The invited error doctrine “prevents a defendant from introducing forbidden evidenc

2016Additionally, the invited error doctrine “prevents a defendant from introducing forbidden evidence and then seeking reversal based on its erroneous introduction.” State v. Stuard, 176 Ariz. 589, 600 (1993). ¶14 The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial, because any error was invited by Defendant.

2019To say Mendoza invited whatever error resulted from his general request to speak with the court would cause an unprecedented expansion of a doctrine that should be approached with “extreme caution.” Lucero, 223 Ariz. at 135 , ¶ 18 (quoting State v. Smith, 101 Ariz. 407, 409 (1966)).

2019To say Mendoza invited whatever error resulted from his general request to speak with the court would cause an unprecedented expansion of a doctrine that should be approached with “extreme caution.” Lucero, 223 Ariz. at 135 , ¶ 18 (quoting State v. Smith, 101 Ariz. 407, 409 (1966)).

2018See State v. Lucero, 223 Ariz. 129 , 135 ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (cautioning against apply the invited error doctrine “unless the facts clearly show that the error was actually invited by the appellant”). ¶65 Declaring a mistrial is “the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 , 570 ¶ 43 (2003).

2018See State v. Lucero, 223 Ariz. 129 , 135 ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (cautioning against apply the invited error doctrine “unless the facts clearly show that the error was actually invited by the appellant”). ¶65 Declaring a mistrial is “the most dramatic remedy for trial error and should be granted only when it appears that justice will be thwarted unless the jury is discharged and a new trial granted.” State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 , 570 ¶ 43 (2003).

2017See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 20 . ¶22 Rusing has failed to meet his burden for reversal on fundamental error review.

2009State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 568, ¶ 23 , 115 P.3d 601, 608 (2005) (fundamental error); State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n. 7, ¶ 59, 93 P.3d 1061 , 1073 n. 7 (2004) (invited error).

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, “[bjefore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians’ affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify.” In re MH 2008-001752, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 3 (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). 4 The footnote cited MH 2007-001275, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial heating by stipulating to the c

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, "[b]efore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians' affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify." In re MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 [3] (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). [4] The footnote cited MH XXXX-XXXXXX, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial hearing by stipulating to t

2009Id.; State v. Pandeli, 215 Ariz. 514, 528, ¶ 50 , 161 P.3d 557, 571 (2007) (applying the invited error doctrine when defense counsel failed to object to evidence offered by the State and affirmatively agreed the evidence was admissible); State v. Islas, 132 Ariz. 590, 592 , 647 P.2d 1188, 1190 (App.1982) ("[A] party who participates in or contributes to an error cannot complain of it.").

2009Id.; State v. Pandeli, 215 Ariz. 514, 528, ¶ 50 , 161 P.3d 557, 571 (2007) (applying the invited error doctrine when defense counsel failed to object to evidence offered by the State and affirmatively agreed the evidence was admissible); State v. Islas, 132 Ariz. 590, 592 , 647 P.2d 1188, 1190 (App.1982) ("[A] party who participates in or contributes to an error cannot complain of it.").

1991We recognize that in State v. Tittle, a murder case in which the defendant received the death penalty, this court did not apply the doctrine of invited error to a defendant who requested and received the RAJI 4.01 instruction in connection with his claim of self-defense. 147 Ariz. 339, 342 , 710 P.2d 449, 452 (1985).

1991We recognize that in State v. Tittle, a murder case in which the defendant received the death penalty, this court did not apply the doctrine of invited error to a defendant who requested and received the RAJI 4.01 instruction in connection with his claim of self-defense. 147 Ariz. 339, 342 , 710 P.2d 449, 452 (1985).

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, “[bjefore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians’ affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify.” In re MH 2008-001752, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 3 (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). 4 The footnote cited MH 2007-001275, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial heating by stipulating to the c

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, “[bjefore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians’ affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify.” In re MH 2008-001752, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 3 (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). 4 The footnote cited MH 2007-001275, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial heating by stipulating to the c

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, “[bjefore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians’ affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify.” In re MH 2008-001752, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 3 (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). 4 The footnote cited MH 2007-001275, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial heating by stipulating to the c

2010Appellant relies almost entirely on a footnote in which we stated, in dictum, that, "[b]efore accepting a stipulation to the admission of the physicians' affidavits in lieu of testimony, the court should ascertain that the patient has voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her statutory right to have the physicians testify." In re MH XXXX-XXXXXX, 222 Ariz. 225 , 213 P.3d 374 [3] (emphasis added), withdrawn and amended by 222 Ariz. 567 , 218 P.3d 1024 (App.2009). [4] The footnote cited MH XXXX-XXXXXX, a case in which the patient waived the entire adversarial hearing by stipulating to t

1991Similarly, in State v. Garcia, the court of appeals, in holding that Hunter was retroactive, did not apply the doctrine of invited error in a case in which the defendant had requested RAJI 4.01 before this court’s opinion in Hunter condemned its use in self-defense cases. 152 Ariz. 245 , 731 P.2d 610 (App.1986).

1991Similarly, in State v. Garcia, the court of appeals, in holding that Hunter was retroactive, did not apply the doctrine of invited error in a case in which the defendant had requested RAJI 4.01 before this court’s opinion in Hunter condemned its use in self-defense cases. 152 Ariz. 245 , 731 P.2d 610 (App.1986).

1996State v. Wilson, 185 Ariz. 254, 258 , 914 P.2d 1346, 1350 (App.1995); see also State v. Crumley, 128 Ariz. 302, 305 , 625 P.2d 891, 894 (1981).

1996State v. Wilson, 185 Ariz. 254, 258 , 914 P.2d 1346, 1350 (App.1995); see also State v. Crumley, 128 Ariz. 302, 305 , 625 P.2d 891, 894 (1981).

1993“The invited error doctrine applies to situations ‘where evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant or require some response or rebuttal’ ” State v. Woods, 141 Ariz. 446, 455 , 687 P.2d 1201, 1210 (1984) (quoting Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 103 , 677 P.2d 261, 266 (1984)).

1993“The invited error doctrine applies to situations ‘where evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant or require some response or rebuttal’ ” State v. Woods, 141 Ariz. 446, 455 , 687 P.2d 1201, 1210 (1984) (quoting Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 103 , 677 P.2d 261, 266 (1984)).

1980See State v. Cortez, 101 Ariz. 214 , 418 P.2d 370 (1966).

1980See State v. Cortez, 101 Ariz. 214 , 418 P.2d 370 (1966).

2025And although, as C-Back correctly noted, “[t]he superior court was not required to accept and examine evidence presented to it for the first time in connection with [a] motion for reconsideration,” Tilley v. Delci, 220 Ariz. 233, 238, ¶ 17 (App. 2009), that principle is irrelevant here because the superior court did, in fact, accept and consider the conditional loan approval.

2024Mental Health No. MH2009-002120, 225 Ariz. 284 , 287 ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“We generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, argued for the first time on appeal.”); State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n.7 ¶ 59 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal); In re MH–1140–6–93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 (App. 1993) (finding alleged due process violations were waived as arguments because they were raised for the first time on appeal).

2024Mental Health No. MH2009-002120, 225 Ariz. 284 , 287 ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (“We generally do not consider issues, even constitutional issues, argued for the first time on appeal.”); State v. Armstrong, 208 Ariz. 345 , 357 n.7 ¶ 59 (2004) (stating that the invited error doctrine exists to prevent a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from that error on appeal); In re MH–1140–6–93, 176 Ariz. 565, 568 (App. 1993) (finding alleged due process violations were waived as arguments because they were raised for the first time on appeal).