invited error in Virgin Islands

2017Therefore, when a defendant, either on his own or through counsel, “induces or encourages the Superior Court to commit an error, the invited error doctrine precludes that error from forming the basis for reversal on direct appeal.” Williams v. People (Williams V), 59 V.I. 1024, 1033 (V.I. 2013); see also United States v. Sharpe, 996 F.2d 125, 129 (6th Cir. 1993) (“The doctrine of ‘invited error’ refers to the principle that a party may not complain on appeal of errors that he himself invited or provoked the court or the opposite party to commit.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted

2017The People argues that because Pickering “agree[d] to the procedure proposed” by the Superior Court, any error the court committed was invited error. “[W]hen a defendant, through his counsel, induces or encourages the Superior Court to commit an error, the invited error doctrine precludes that error from forming the basis for reversal on direct appeal.” Williams v. People, 59 V.I. 1024, 1033 (V.I. 2013) (collecting cases).

2017The People further argues that, even if the Superior Court did err, Miller invited the error because Miller invoked her religion “at every possible opportunity.” This Court has held that “when a defendant, through his counsel, induces or encourages the Superior Court to commit an error, the invited error doctrine precludes that error from forming the basis for reversal on direct appeal.” Williams v. People, 59 V.I. 1024, 1033 (V.I. 2013); Powell v. People, 59 V.I. 444, 465 (V.I. 2013) (“Generally, trial error which is induced, encouraged, acquiesced in, or consented to by defense counsel does

2013See, e.g., Powell v. People, 59 V.I. 444, 462 (V.I. 2013) (“Powell did not object to the evidence at trial, and even stipulated to [its] admission .... [T]rial error which is induced, encouraged, acquiesced in, or consented to by defense counsel does not form a basis for reversal on appeal.”); Fontaine v. People, 56 V.I. 571, 583 (V.I. 2012) (“[T]he invited error doctrine precludes errors stemming from erroneous jury instructions proposed by a defendant’s counsel from forming the basis for reversal.”); Duggins v. People, 56 V.I. 295, 308-09 (V.I. 2012) (“Thus, because Duggins’s counsel invited

2017The People further argues that, even if the Superior Court did err, Miller invited the error because Miller invoked her religion “at every possible opportunity.” This Court has held that “when a defendant, through his counsel, induces or encourages the Superior Court to commit an error, the invited error doctrine precludes that error from forming the basis for reversal on direct appeal.” Williams v. People, 59 V.I. 1024, 1033 (V.I. 2013); Powell v. People, 59 V.I. 444, 465 (V.I. 2013) (“Generally, trial error which is induced, encouraged, acquiesced in, or consented to by defense counsel does

2013See, e.g., Powell v. People, 59 V.I. 444, 462 (V.I. 2013) (“Powell did not object to the evidence at trial, and even stipulated to [its] admission .... [T]rial error which is induced, encouraged, acquiesced in, or consented to by defense counsel does not form a basis for reversal on appeal.”); Fontaine v. People, 56 V.I. 571, 583 (V.I. 2012) (“[T]he invited error doctrine precludes errors stemming from erroneous jury instructions proposed by a defendant’s counsel from forming the basis for reversal.”); Duggins v. People, 56 V.I. 295, 308-09 (V.I. 2012) (“Thus, because Duggins’s counsel invited

2013See, e.g., Powell v. People, 59 V.I. 444, 462 (V.I. 2013) (“Powell did not object to the evidence at trial, and even stipulated to [its] admission .... [T]rial error which is induced, encouraged, acquiesced in, or consented to by defense counsel does not form a basis for reversal on appeal.”); Fontaine v. People, 56 V.I. 571, 583 (V.I. 2012) (“[T]he invited error doctrine precludes errors stemming from erroneous jury instructions proposed by a defendant’s counsel from forming the basis for reversal.”); Duggins v. People, 56 V.I. 295, 308-09 (V.I. 2012) (“Thus, because Duggins’s counsel invited

2012See Latalladi, 51 V.I. at 143-44 .

2025Evid. 103(a)(1)(B) (“A party may claim error in a ruling ... if the ruling admits evidence, a[nd the] party ... timely objects or moves to strike; and ... states the specific ground....”); Castillo v. People, 59 V.I. 240, at 276 (V.I. 2013) (Invited error does not provide grounds for reversal.); see, e.g., Ubiles v. People, 66 V.I. 572, 583-84 (V.I. 2017) (Defendant waived objection to exhibit by entering in evidence.).

2025Evid. 103(a)(1)(B) (“A party may claim error in a ruling ... if the ruling admits evidence, a[nd the] party ... timely objects or moves to strike; and ... states the specific ground....”); Castillo v. People, 59 V.I. 240, at 276 (V.I. 2013) (Invited error does not provide grounds for reversal.); see, e.g., Ubiles v. People, 66 V.I. 572, 583-84 (V.I. 2017) (Defendant waived objection to exhibit by entering in evidence.).

2024See Najawicz v. People, 58 V.I. 315, 336-38 (V.I. 2013).

2017Therefore, when a defendant, either on his own or through counsel, “induces or encourages the Superior Court to commit an error, the invited error doctrine precludes that error from forming the basis for reversal on direct appeal.” Williams v. People (Williams V), 59 V.I. 1024, 1033 (V.I. 2013); see also United States v. Sharpe, 996 F.2d 125, 129 (6th Cir. 1993) (“The doctrine of ‘invited error’ refers to the principle that a party may not complain on appeal of errors that he himself invited or provoked the court or the opposite party to commit.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted

2013Thus, unlike the mere failure to object, “[w]here invited error exists, it precludes a court from invoking the plain error rule and reversing.” United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005).

2013“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.” State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4 , 128 P.3d 1171, 1179 (Utah 2006) (citing State v. Medina, 738 P.2d 1021, 1023 (Utah 1987)); see also Zanoletti v. Norle Props., Corp., 688 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. Dist.

2013“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.” State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4 , 128 P.3d 1171, 1179 (Utah 2006) (citing State v. Medina, 738 P.2d 1021, 1023 (Utah 1987)); see also Zanoletti v. Norle Props., Corp., 688 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. Dist.

2013“Indeed, recognizing an invited error would seriously undermine confidence in the integrity of the courts.” United States v. Lespier, 725 F.3d 437, 450 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Gomez, 705 F.3d 68, 76 (2d Cir. 2013)).

2013Ct. App. 1997) (“Invited error occurs when the appellant somehow induced the specific ruling by her affirmative action . . . .”); Cordova v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 121 N.M. 258 , 910 P.2d 334, 339 (1995) (“A party who has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling should hardly be heard to complain about those shortcomings on appeal.”).

2013Ct. App. 1997) (“Invited error occurs when the appellant somehow induced the specific ruling by her affirmative action . . . .”); Cordova v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 121 N.M. 258 , 910 P.2d 334, 339 (1995) (“A party who has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling should hardly be heard to complain about those shortcomings on appeal.”).

2013See, e.g., Powell v. People, 59 V.I. 444, 462 (V.I. 2013) (“Powell did not object to the evidence at trial, and even stipulated to [its] admission .... [T]rial error which is induced, encouraged, acquiesced in, or consented to by defense counsel does not form a basis for reversal on appeal.”); Fontaine v. People, 56 V.I. 571, 583 (V.I. 2012) (“[T]he invited error doctrine precludes errors stemming from erroneous jury instructions proposed by a defendant’s counsel from forming the basis for reversal.”); Duggins v. People, 56 V.I. 295, 308-09 (V.I. 2012) (“Thus, because Duggins’s counsel invited

2013“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.” State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4 , 128 P.3d 1171, 1179 (Utah 2006) (citing State v. Medina, 738 P.2d 1021, 1023 (Utah 1987)); see also Zanoletti v. Norle Props., Corp., 688 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. Dist.

2013“Indeed, recognizing an invited error would seriously undermine confidence in the integrity of the courts.” United States v. Lespier, 725 F.3d 437, 450 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Gomez, 705 F.3d 68, 76 (2d Cir. 2013)).

2013“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.” State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4 , 128 P.3d 1171, 1179 (Utah 2006) (citing State v. Medina, 738 P.2d 1021, 1023 (Utah 1987)); see also Zanoletti v. Norle Props., Corp., 688 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. Dist.