invited error in Texas

2026Analysis We begin by observing that “a party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested, a doctrine commonly referred to as ‘the invited error’ doctrine.” Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. 2005). “[I]t is clear in Texas law that for a party to be estopped from asserting a position in an appellate court based on actions it took in the trial court, the party must have ‘unequivocally taken a position in the trial court that is clearly adverse to its position on appeal.’” In re S.T., 508 S.W.3d 482, 488 (Tex. App.

2025Finally, “a party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested, a doctrine commonly referred to as ‘the invited error’ doctrine.” Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. 2005) (quoting Ne.

2026“Under the doctrine of invited error, if a party requests or moves the court to make an erroneous ruling, and the court rules in accordance with the request or motion, the party responsible for the court’s action cannot take advantage of the error on appeal.” Willeford v. State, 72 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 532 (Tex. Crim.

2026“Under the doctrine of invited error, if a party requests or moves the court to make an erroneous ruling, and the court rules in accordance with the request or motion, the party responsible for the court’s action cannot take advantage of the error on appeal.” Willeford v. State, 72 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 532 (Tex. Crim.

2026Analysis We begin by observing that “a party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested, a doctrine commonly referred to as ‘the invited error’ doctrine.” Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. 2005). “[I]t is clear in Texas law that for a party to be estopped from asserting a position in an appellate court based on actions it took in the trial court, the party must have ‘unequivocally taken a position in the trial court that is clearly adverse to its position on appeal.’” In re S.T., 508 S.W.3d 482, 488 (Tex. App.

2026“The invited error doctrine applies to situations where a party requests the court to make a specific ruling, then complains of that ruling on appeal.” Galvan v. Garcia, 502 S.W.3d 382, 385 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, no pet.) (quoting In re Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637, 646 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding)).

2025First, we note that Taylor invited this error, and under the doctrine of invited error, a party is “estopped from seeking appellate relief based on error it induced.” Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 644 (Tex. Crim.

2025First, we note that Taylor invited this error, and under the doctrine of invited error, a party is “estopped from seeking appellate relief based on error it induced.” Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 644 (Tex. Crim.

2003Moreover, although appellant's counsel contended that the State had not presented any evidence, notwithstanding the court's comment that it prohibited the State from introducing evidence, the State: •was a moving factor creating and inviting the error by requesting to introduce evidence during trial; Ex parte Guerrero, 521 S.W.2d 613, 614 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Capistran v. State, 759 S.W.2d 121, 124 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982); see State v. Manning, 833 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex.App.--Waco 1992, no pet.) (holding that the doctrine of invited error should apply to the State); •did not withdraw it's request to

2003Moreover, although appellant's counsel contended that the State had not presented any evidence, notwithstanding the court's comment that it prohibited the State from introducing evidence, the State: •was a moving factor creating and inviting the error by requesting to introduce evidence during trial; Ex parte Guerrero, 521 S.W.2d 613, 614 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Capistran v. State, 759 S.W.2d 121, 124 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982); see State v. Manning, 833 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex.App.--Waco 1992, no pet.) (holding that the doctrine of invited error should apply to the State); •did not withdraw it's request to

2005See General Chemical Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 920 (Tex. 1993), cert. dism'd , 510 U.S. 985 , 114 S.Ct. 490 , 126 L.Ed.2d 440 (1993).

2005See General Chemical Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 920 (Tex. 1993), cert. dism'd , 510 U.S. 985 , 114 S.Ct. 490 , 126 L.Ed.2d 440 (1993).

2026“Under the doctrine of invited error, if a party requests or moves the court to make an erroneous ruling, and the court rules in accordance with the request or motion, the party responsible for the court’s action cannot take advantage of the error on appeal.” Willeford v. State, 72 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 532 (Tex. Crim.

2026“Under the doctrine of invited error, if a party requests or moves the court to make an erroneous ruling, and the court rules in accordance with the request or motion, the party responsible for the court’s action cannot take advantage of the error on appeal.” Willeford v. State, 72 S.W.3d 820, 823 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 532 (Tex. Crim.

2021The doctrine of invited error provides that "if a party affirmatively seeks action by the trial court, that party cannot later contend that the action was error." Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491, 505-06 (Tex. Crim.

2021The doctrine of invited error provides that "if a party affirmatively seeks action by the trial court, that party cannot later contend that the action was error." Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491, 505-06 (Tex. Crim.

2010App. 1999) (en banc) (explaining that "the doctrine of invited error estops the appellant from complaining of it" and describing "invited error" as "more than, and different from, waiver," because "invited error" excludes from the definition of "reversible error" any actions of the trial court "actually sought by the party in that tribunal"); Ex parte Guerrero, 521 S.W.2d 613, 614 (Tex. Crim.

2010App. 1999) (en banc) (explaining that "the doctrine of invited error estops the appellant from complaining of it" and describing "invited error" as "more than, and different from, waiver," because "invited error" excludes from the definition of "reversible error" any actions of the trial court "actually sought by the party in that tribunal"); Ex parte Guerrero , 521 S.W.2d 613, 614 (Tex. Crim.

2006Matchett v. State, 941 S.W.2d 922, 935 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996).

2005Matchett v. State, 941 S.W.2d 922, 935 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996).

2024See Berry v. Segall, 315 S.W.3d 141, 143 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.) (“The doctrine of invited error provides that a party may not complain of an error which he has invited.”).

2020The invited error doctrine provides that a party “cannot ask something of the trial court and then complain that the court erred by granting the request . . . . [T]he doctrine of invited error provides that a party may not complain of an error which the party invited.” Haler v. Boyington Capital Grp., Inc., 411 S.W.3d 631, 637 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied) (refusing to consider merits of defendant’s argument that jury’s answer did not clearly “afford a reasonable basis upon which to enter a judgment” and should be disregarded, because jury question used language defendant requested in p

2005See General Chemical Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 920 (Tex. 1993), cert. dism'd , 510 U.S. 985 , 114 S.Ct. 490 , 126 L.Ed.2d 440 (1993).

2005See General Chemical Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 920 (Tex. 1993), cert. dism'd , 510 U.S. 985 , 114 S.Ct. 490 , 126 L.Ed.2d 440 (1993).

2005See General Chemical Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 920 (Tex. 1993), cert. dism'd , 510 U.S. 985 , 114 S.Ct. 490 , 126 L.Ed.2d 440 (1993).

2005See General Chemical Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 920 (Tex. 1993), cert. dism'd , 510 U.S. 985 , 114 S.Ct. 490 , 126 L.Ed.2d 440 (1993).

2005See General Chemical Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 920 (Tex. 1993), cert. dism'd , 510 U.S. 985 , 114 S.Ct. 490 , 126 L.Ed.2d 440 (1993).

2005See General Chemical Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 920 (Tex. 1993), cert. dism'd , 510 U.S. 985 , 114 S.Ct. 490 , 126 L.Ed.2d 440 (1993).

2023“According to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, a defendant cannot waive certain statutorily mandated requirements such as statutorily mandated sentences, but under the doctrine of invited error (i.e., estoppel), he cannot also complain later about an action that he requested.” Ex parte Shoe, 137 S.W.3d 100, 102 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied)12 (per curiam) (citing Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 , 530–32 (Tex. Crim.

2023“According to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, a defendant cannot waive certain statutorily mandated requirements such as statutorily mandated sentences, but under the doctrine of invited error (i.e., estoppel), he cannot also complain later about an action that he requested.” Ex parte Shoe, 137 S.W.3d 100, 102 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied)12 (per curiam) (citing Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 , 530–32 (Tex. Crim.

2008Under Art. 1.15, Code of Criminal Procedure, I waive and give up the right to appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of the witnesses, and I consent to oral and written stipulations of evidence. [3] Other cases applying the invited error doctrine include McCray v. State, 861 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no pet.); Mann v. State, 850 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Hargett, 827 S.W.2d 606, 607-08 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, pet. ref'd). [4] The trial court may also request that "other information relating to the defendant or the offense"

2008Other cases applying the invited error doctrine include McCray v. State, 861 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no pet.); Mann v. State, 850 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Hargett, 827 S.W.2d 606, 607-08 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, pet. ref'd). .

2009Safety v. Butler , 941 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1997, no writ); see also Ex parte Elliot , 815 S.W.2d 251, 252 (Tex. 1991) ("Texas law governing expunction of criminal records creates a unique situation in which all persons and agencies party to an expunction share not only interwoven but identical interests."). 5. 5 Butler , 941 S.W.2d at 320 . 6. 6 See Kelly v. Demoss Owners Ass'n , 71 S.W.3d 419, 424 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.) ("Invited error is an equitable doctrine which prohibits a party from acting in a way that misleads a trial court into committing error and i

2009The concept of invited error not only is well established in Texas jurisprudence, Kelly v. Demoss Owners Ass’n., 71 S.W.3d 419, 424 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.), but also prevents a litigant from complaining about mistakes that he helped cause.

2008Under Art. 1.15, Code of Criminal Procedure, I waive and give up the right to appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of the witnesses, and I consent to oral and written stipulations of evidence. [3] Other cases applying the invited error doctrine include McCray v. State, 861 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no pet.); Mann v. State, 850 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Hargett, 827 S.W.2d 606, 607-08 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, pet. ref'd). [4] The trial court may also request that "other information relating to the defendant or the offense"

2008Other cases applying the invited error doctrine include McCray v. State, 861 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no pet.); Mann v. State, 850 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Hargett, 827 S.W.2d 606, 607-08 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, pet. ref'd). .

2008Under Art. 1.15, Code of Criminal Procedure, I waive and give up the right to appearance, confrontation, and cross-examination of the witnesses, and I consent to oral and written stipulations of evidence. [3] Other cases applying the invited error doctrine include McCray v. State, 861 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no pet.); Mann v. State, 850 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Hargett, 827 S.W.2d 606, 607-08 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, pet. ref'd). [4] The trial court may also request that "other information relating to the defendant or the offense"

2008Other cases applying the invited error doctrine include McCray v. State, 861 S.W.2d 405, 409 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no pet.); Mann v. State, 850 S.W.2d 740, 742 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Hargett, 827 S.W.2d 606, 607-08 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, pet. ref'd). .

2003Moreover, although appellant's counsel contended that the State had not presented any evidence, notwithstanding the court's comment that it prohibited the State from introducing evidence, the State: •was a moving factor creating and inviting the error by requesting to introduce evidence during trial; Ex parte Guerrero, 521 S.W.2d 613, 614 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Capistran v. State, 759 S.W.2d 121, 124 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982); see State v. Manning, 833 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex.App.--Waco 1992, no pet.) (holding that the doctrine of invited error should apply to the State); •did not withdraw it's request to

2003Moreover, although appellant's counsel contended that the State had not presented any evidence, notwithstanding the court's comment that it prohibited the State from introducing evidence, the State: •was a moving factor creating and inviting the error by requesting to introduce evidence during trial; Ex parte Guerrero, 521 S.W.2d 613, 614 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975); Capistran v. State, 759 S.W.2d 121, 124 (Tex.Cr.App. 1982); see State v. Manning, 833 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Tex.App.--Waco 1992, no pet.) (holding that the doctrine of invited error should apply to the State); •did not withdraw it's request to

2022In short, the invited error doctrine “prevents a litigant from complaining about mistakes that he helped cause.” In re Marriage of Palacios, 358 S.W.3d 662, 664 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied) (citing Bluestar Energy, Inc., 205 S.W.3d at 101 ; Keith, 221 S.W.3d at 163 ).

2019See Keith v. Keith, 221 S.W.3d 156, 163 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (under the doctrine of invited error, an appellant may not complain on appeal that a court granted the appellant’s own request).

2018App. 1993) ("Since [Yount ] requested that the jury be instructed on the lesser included offense, he is now estopped from complaining that his conviction of that offense is barred by limitations."); Cadd v. State , 587 S.W.2d 736 , 741 (Tex. Crim.

2018App. 1993) ("Since [Yount ] requested that the jury be instructed on the lesser included offense, he is now estopped from complaining that his conviction of that offense is barred by limitations."); Cadd v. State , 587 S.W.2d 736 , 741 (Tex. Crim.

2015In re Department of Family and Protective Services, 273 S.W.3d 637, 646 (Tex. 2009); Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. 2005); Ramirez v. State, 973 S.W.2d 388, 392 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.).

2005As we explained in Hodges, a party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested, a doctrine commonly referred to as “the invited error” doctrine. 158 S.W.2d at 488 ; see, e.g., Naguib v. Naguib, 137 S.W.3d 367, 375 (Tex.App., Dallas 2004, pet. denied); Neasbitt v. Warren, 22 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2000, no pet.); Ramirez, 973 S.W.2d at 392 .

2026Analysis We begin by observing that “a party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested, a doctrine commonly referred to as ‘the invited error’ doctrine.” Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. 2005). “[I]t is clear in Texas law that for a party to be estopped from asserting a position in an appellate court based on actions it took in the trial court, the party must have ‘unequivocally taken a position in the trial court that is clearly adverse to its position on appeal.’” In re S.T., 508 S.W.3d 482, 488 (Tex. App.

2023See In re S.T., 508 S.W.3d 482, 488 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2015, no pet.). 4 conviction about the truth of the petitioner’s allegations.

2015See Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d at 646 (citing Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex.2005) ("[A] party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested, a doctrine commonly referred to as ‘the invited error’ doctrine.”); Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 91, 94-95 (Tex.1999); Litton Indus.

2012Real parties thus contend that “a litigant must be careful when asking what he wishes for; should the trial court grant it, and the litigant is wrong, he cannot complain on appeal.” “The invited error doctrine applies to situations where a party requests the court to make a specific ruling, then complains of that ruling on appeal.” In re Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637, 646 (Tex. 2009); see Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp., 171 S. W.3d 857, 862 (Tex. 2005) ("[A] party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested, a do

2018In the present case, Appellant was given the exact jury instruction she requested and is now trying to “benefit from an error that was committed at [her] behest.” Trejo v. State, 280 S.W.3d 258, 260 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009); Tucker v. State, 771 S.W.2d 523, 534 (1988).

1996See Hill v. State, 913 S.W.2d 581, 586 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (defendant may not complain of submission of issue of deadly weapon at punishment phase where he objected to its submission at guilt phase); Tucker v. State, 771 S.W.2d 523, 534 (Tex. Crim.App.1988) (defendant may not complain about erroneous jury charge he requested); *732 Ex parte Hargett, 827 S.W.2d 606, 607, 608 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, pet. ref'd) (defendant may not complain of failure of trial court to hold evidentiary hearing where defendant asked writ to be determined on record alone).

2011Tex. Motor Lines, 158 S.W.2d at 488 ; see also Tittizer, 171 S.W.3d at 862 (“[A] party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested, a doctrine commonly referred to as ‘the invited error’ doctrine.”).

2010Tex. Motor Lines , 158 S.W.2d at 488 ; see also Tittizer , 171 S.W.3d at 862 (“[A] party cannot complain on appeal that the trial court took a specific action that the complaining party requested, a doctrine commonly referred to as ‘the invited error’ doctrine.”).