invited error in Illinois

2026Meaning, “[u]nder the doctrine of invited error, [a defendant] may not request to proceed in one manner and then later contend on appeal that the course of action was in error.” People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309, 319 (2003). ¶ 18 Here, the invited-error doctrine applies and is dispositive.

2026Meaning, “[u]nder the doctrine of invited error, [a defendant] may not request to proceed in one manner and then later contend on appeal that the course of action was in error.” People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309, 319 (2003). ¶ 18 Here, the invited-error doctrine applies and is dispositive.

2025We disagree. 37 ¶ 111 “[U]nder the doctrine of invited error, an accused may not request to proceed in one manner and then later contend on appeal that the course of action was in error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385 (2004).

2025We disagree. 37 ¶ 111 “[U]nder the doctrine of invited error, an accused may not request to proceed in one manner and then later contend on appeal that the course of action was in error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385 (2004).

2026Under the doctrine of invited error, “a party cannot complain of error which that party induced the court to make or to which that party consented.” In re Detention of Swope, 213 Ill. 2d 210, 217 (2004).

2026Under the doctrine of invited error, “a party cannot complain of error which that party induced the court to make or to which that party consented.” In re Detention of Swope, 213 Ill. 2d 210, 217 (2004).

2025“Active participation in the direction of the proceedings *** goes beyond mere [forfeiture].” People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001). ¶ 38 The invited error doctrine has been applied against claims of error in jury instructions.

2025People v. Holloway, 2019 IL App (2d) 170551, ¶ 44 (invited error precludes plain error analysis); Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d at 385-86 . ¶ 100 However, generally, “[c]laims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not precluded by the invited error doctrine.” People v. Drew, 2024 IL App (5th) 240697, ¶ 31 (citing People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 228 (2001)).

2026The State argues that plain error review is not available to the defendant because 1) the error was invited and 2) the error complained of was not so egregious as to deny him a fair sentencing hearing. ¶ 12 “Under the invited-error doctrine, a party cannot acquiesce to the manner in which the trial court proceeds and later claim on appeal that the trial court’s actions constituted error.” People v. Manning, 2017 IL App (2d) 140930, ¶ 33 (the invited error rule states that a party cannot complain of error that it brought about or participated in); People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318, 332 (2005) (wh

2026According to the State, “the statements from C.L. and others that defendant elicited via his questioning, taken with the other evidence introduced at trial, clearly established all of the facts he now complains of.” In support, the State relies on this court’s decision in People v. Ramirez, 2013 IL App (4th) 121153 . ¶ 38 “The doctrine of invited error prevents a defendant from raising a claim on appeal where he or she ‘procures, invites, or acquiesces in the admission’ of otherwise improperly admitted evidence.” People v. Collins, 2020 IL App (1st) 181746, ¶ 16 (quoting People v. Bush, 214 Il

2025The State maintains that defendant’s conduct “is the very conduct this Court seeks to prevent through the invited error doctrine because this tactic has deprived the People and the trial court of any opportunity to cure any perceived issue.” - 30 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240194 ¶ 82 Under the doctrine of invited error, “it is well established that ‘an accused may not ask the trial court to proceed in a certain manner and then contend in a court of review that the order which he obtained was in error.’ ” People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill. 2d 228, 241 (2000) (quoting People v. Lowe, 153 Ill. 2d 195, 199 (1

2025The State maintains that defendant’s conduct “is the very conduct this Court seeks to prevent through the invited error doctrine because this tactic has deprived the People and the trial court of any opportunity to cure any perceived issue.” - 30 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240194 ¶ 82 Under the doctrine of invited error, “it is well established that ‘an accused may not ask the trial court to proceed in a certain manner and then contend in a court of review that the order which he obtained was in error.’ ” People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill. 2d 228, 241 (2000) (quoting People v. Lowe, 153 Ill. 2d 195, 199 (1

2026We agree with the State and affirm the court’s judgment. ¶ 36 Under the invited error doctrine, a party “may not ask the trial court to proceed in a certain manner and then contend in a court of review that the order which he obtained was in error.” People v. Lowe, 153 Ill. 2d 195, 199 (1992).

2025The State maintains that defendant’s conduct “is the very conduct this Court seeks to prevent through the invited error doctrine because this tactic has deprived the People and the trial court of any opportunity to cure any perceived issue.” - 30 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240194 ¶ 82 Under the doctrine of invited error, “it is well established that ‘an accused may not ask the trial court to proceed in a certain manner and then contend in a court of review that the order which he obtained was in error.’ ” People v. Segoviano, 189 Ill. 2d 228, 241 (2000) (quoting People v. Lowe, 153 Ill. 2d 195, 199 (1

2019App. 3d 879 , 886-87, 347 Ill.Dec. 106 , 941 N.E.2d 975 (2010) ("The purpose of the invited error doctrine is to prevent a defendant from unfairly receiving a second trial based on an error which he injected into the proceedings.") (emphasis added); Villarreal , 198 Ill. 2d at 227 -28 , 260 Ill.Dec. 619 , 761 N.E.2d 1175 (holding that the defendant could not attack verdict forms he submitted at trial on appeal); People v. Patrick , 233 Ill. 2d 62 , 77, 330 Ill.Dec. 149 , 908 N.E.2d 1 (2009) (holding that the defendant invited the alleged error by tendering the jury instruction he later challen

2019App. 3d 879 , 886-87, 347 Ill.Dec. 106 , 941 N.E.2d 975 (2010) ("The purpose of the invited error doctrine is to prevent a defendant from unfairly receiving a second trial based on an error which he injected into the proceedings.") (emphasis added); Villarreal , 198 Ill. 2d at 227 -28 , 260 Ill.Dec. 619 , 761 N.E.2d 1175 (holding that the defendant could not attack verdict forms he submitted at trial on appeal); People v. Patrick , 233 Ill. 2d 62 , 77, 330 Ill.Dec. 149 , 908 N.E.2d 1 (2009) (holding that the defendant invited the alleged error by tendering the jury instruction he later challen

2025Under the invited error doctrine, “a defendant cannot request to proceed in one manner in the trial court and later assert on appeal that the course of action used was erroneous.” People v. Smith, 406 Ill.

2025“The purpose of the invited error doctrine is to prevent a defendant from unfairly receiving a second trial based on an error which he injected into the proceedings.” People v. Smith, 406 Ill.

2024See 720 ILCS 5/11-1.40 (West 2018). ¶ 72 The State concedes the use of the phrase “sexual conduct” was improper, but it contends defendant invited any error. “ ‘Under the invited-error doctrine, a party cannot acquiesce to the manner in which the trial court proceeds and later claim on appeal that the trial court’s actions constituted error.’ ” People v. Cox, 2017 IL App (1st) 151536, ¶ 73 (quoting People v. Manning, 2017 IL App (2d) 140930, ¶ 16 ).

2022McDaniel’s testimony reveals that the parties agreed that she should transition from a coparenting therapist to a parenting coordinator in this matter. ¶ 27 Pointing to People v. Cox, 2017 IL App (1st) 151536, ¶ 74 , Sarah claims that the invited error doctrine is inapplicable because of the motion in limine challenging the testimony prior to the hearing.

2025Assuming error occurred, the invited error rule states “a party cannot complain of error that it brought about or participated in.” People v. Hughes, 2015 IL 117242, ¶ 33 .

2024Under the invited error rule, “a party cannot complain of error that it brought about or participated in.” People v. Hughes, 2015 IL 117242 , ¶ 33.

2018The defense indicated that it was in perfect agreement with the trial court’s intended approach by stating, “Right.” See People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 113-14 (2001) (when the trial court asked the defense counsel if he had any objection to the State playing a 911 tape and counsel 16 No. 1-16-1267 replied, “ ‘No objection, Judge,’ ” the defendant thereby “acquiesced in the admission of this evidence”); Cox, 2017 IL App (1st) 151536, ¶¶ 72-75 (the invited error doctrine barred defendant’s claim on appeal about the admission of a hearsay statement, when defense counsel had stated “no objectio

2013People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52 (2001). ¶ 11 Initially, the State contends that the invited error doctrine prohibits defendant from raising this issue on appeal.

2013App. 3d 422, 432-33 , 865 N.E.2d 279, 289 (2007) (concluding the defendant could not complain about the trial court’s response to the jury’s question where the defendant acquiesced by failing to object to the proposed response). -16- ¶ 89 Defendant argues that, because he was not present when the trial court developed its proposed response, the doctrine of invited error does not apply to defendant’s case.

2013App. 3d 422, 432-33 , 865 N.E.2d 279, 289 (2007) (concluding the defendant could not complain about the trial court’s response to the jury’s question where the defendant acquiesced by failing to object to the proposed response). -16- ¶ 89 Defendant argues that, because he was not present when the trial court developed its proposed response, the doctrine of invited error does not apply to defendant’s case.

2026The State, meanwhile, does not believe plain error review should apply and instead urges us to apply the doctrine of invited error and disregard the defendant’s claims. ¶ 13 “[U]nder the doctrine of invited error, a defendant may not request to proceed in one manner and later contend on appeal that the course of action was in error.” People v. Harding, 2012 IL App (2d) 101011, ¶ 17 .

2026The State, meanwhile, does not believe plain error review should apply and instead urges us to apply the doctrine of invited error and disregard the defendant’s claims. ¶ 13 “[U]nder the doctrine of invited error, a defendant may not request to proceed in one manner and later contend on appeal that the course of action was in error.” People v. Harding, 2012 IL App (2d) 101011, ¶ 17 .

2026“The invited-error doctrine applies when a [party] claims error *** but deliberately acquiesced in the alleged error.” People v. Holloway, 2019 IL App (2d) 170551, ¶ 45 .

2025Invited error creates an estoppel such that a defendant may not raise the alleged error as a basis for reversal on appeal, because to allow him to do so would “be unfair to the State and encourage defendants to become duplicitous.” Id.

2021People v. Spencer, 2014 IL App (1st) 130020, ¶ 26 (citing People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309, 319 (2003)).

2021People v. Spencer, 2014 IL App (1st) 130020, ¶ 26 (quoting People v. Carter, 208 Ill. 2d 309, 319 (2003)).

2026In re Marriage of Reidy, 2018 IL App (1st) 170054, ¶ 29 (“It is well-settled that a party cannot request to proceed in one manner at trial and then argue on appeal that the requested action was error.”), Direct Auto Insurance Co. v. Bahena, 2019 IL App (1st) 172918, ¶ 36 (“ ‘Under the invited-error doctrine, a - 15 - 1-24-1277) 1-24-2213) Cons. party cannot acquiesce to the manner in which the trial court proceeds and later claim on appeal that the trial court’s actions constituted error.’ ”). ¶ 48 Nor can we find, on this record, that the trial judge’s communication with the Presiding Judge’s

2025See Direct Auto Insurance Co. v. Bahena, 2019 IL App (1st) 172918, ¶ 36 (“Under the invited-error doctrine, a party cannot acquiesce to the manner in which the trial court proceeds and later claim on appeal that the trial court’s actions constituted error.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted.). ¶ 51 In reply, Jaskula argues that she did not waive this argument because she “requested a valuation as of the date of trial, and the court erred in ordering a valuation as of December 31, 2011.” Jaskula points to one paragraph of her response to Dybka’s post-trial motion for judgment, in

2020Indeed, “[t]o permit a defendant to use the exact ruling or action procured in the trial court as a vehicle for reversal on appeal ‘would offend all notions of fair play’ [citation], and ‘encourage defendants to become duplicitous’ [citation].” People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385 (2004) (quoting People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001), and People v. Sparks, 314 Ill.

2020Indeed, “[t]o permit a defendant to use the exact ruling or action procured in the trial court as a vehicle for reversal on appeal ‘would offend all notions of fair play’ [citation], and ‘encourage defendants to become duplicitous’ [citation].” People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385 (2004) (quoting People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001), and People v. Sparks, 314 Ill.

2024See People v. Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d 209, 227-28 (2001) (addressing claim of ineffective assistance in submitting verdict forms after finding invited error precluded directly attacking the forms on appeal); People v. Henderson, 2017 IL App (1st) 142259 , ¶ 210 (“The doctrine of invited error blocks defendant from raising this issue on appeal, absent ineffective assistance of counsel.”); see also People v. Wilson, 2022 IL App (5th) 190377, ¶ 39 ; People v. Chrisman, 2022 IL App (2d) 210530-U, ¶ 32 . ¶ 74 To assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish that (1

2023See People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455, 473-74 (2005); see also People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 385 (2004) (stating defendant, who affirmatively represented he had no objection at trial, was estopped under the doctrine of invited error from contending, on appeal, that evidence was inadmissible on chain of custody grounds). ¶ 40 This court analyzes claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-pronged standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2026Further, “[i]t is well settled under the doctrine of invited error that a defendant cannot request to proceed in one manner in the trial court and later assert on appeal that the course of action was erroneous.” People v. Moore, 2021 IL App (2d) 200407, ¶ 33 . ¶ 25 Here, defendant stipulated to his date of birth; he did not stipulate to the fact that he was five years older than B.L.B., a requisite element of the charged offense.

2025“It is well settled under the doctrine of invited error that a defendant cannot request to proceed in one - 16 - 2025 IL App (2d) 240671-U manner in the trial court and later assert on appeal that the course of action was erroneous.” People v. Moore, 2021 IL App (2d) 200407, ¶ 33 (citing People v. Carter, 208 Ill.2d 309, 319 ).

2026“Affirmative representations that a party has no objection to the proceedings fall within the scope of the invited error doctrine because such representations reassure the trial court and encourage it to proceed without further consideration of the issues.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Aquisto, 2022 IL App (4th) 200081, ¶ 54 . ¶ 106 In this case, defense counsel affirmatively acquiesced to the admission of the T- Mobile certifications of authenticity.

2025See e.g., McMath v. Katholi, 191 Ill. 2d 251, 256 (2000) (applying the invited-error doctrine where a litigant took an inconsistent position below about the governing law); People v. Aquisto, 2022 IL App (4th) 200081, ¶¶ 53-54 (holding that the invited-error doctrine estopped the defendant from challenging the admissibility of an exhibit on appeal where his counsel told the trial court he had no objection to admitting the exhibit).

2025See e.g., McMath v. Katholi, 191 Ill. 2d 251, 256 (2000) (applying the invited-error doctrine where a litigant took an inconsistent position below about the governing law); People v. Aquisto, 2022 IL App (4th) 200081, ¶¶ 53-54 (holding that the invited-error doctrine estopped the defendant from challenging the admissibility of an exhibit on appeal where his counsel told the trial court he had no objection to admitting the exhibit).

2023McMath, 191 Ill. 2d at 255 , 730 N.E.2d at 3 .

2026The State argues that plain error review is not available to the defendant because 1) the error was invited and 2) the error complained of was not so egregious as to deny him a fair sentencing hearing. ¶ 12 “Under the invited-error doctrine, a party cannot acquiesce to the manner in which the trial court proceeds and later claim on appeal that the trial court’s actions constituted error.” People v. Manning, 2017 IL App (2d) 140930, ¶ 33 (the invited error rule states that a party cannot complain of error that it brought about or participated in); People v. Bush, 214 Ill. 2d 318, 332 (2005) (wh

2024See 720 ILCS 5/11-1.40 (West 2018). ¶ 72 The State concedes the use of the phrase “sexual conduct” was improper, but it contends defendant invited any error. “ ‘Under the invited-error doctrine, a party cannot acquiesce to the manner in which the trial court proceeds and later claim on appeal that the trial court’s actions constituted error.’ ” People v. Cox, 2017 IL App (1st) 151536, ¶ 73 (quoting People v. Manning, 2017 IL App (2d) 140930, ¶ 16 ).