Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Perezgreen2 sentences2023Analysis “The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging [on appeal] an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a ‘conscious and deliberate tactical choice’ to ‘request’ the instruction.” (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723 ; accord, People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1293 ; see also People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [“doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his own conduct induces the commission of error’ ”]; People v. Riazati (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 514, 529 .) Defendant, who in th 2023Appellant’s counsel said, “The defense position is just going to be to refer them back to the instructions to look at [Calcrim No.] 572.” “The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his own conduct induces the commission of error.’” (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 .) Furthermore, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appe | 6 | 6 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2023Analysis “The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging [on appeal] an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a ‘conscious and deliberate tactical choice’ to ‘request’ the instruction.” (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723 ; accord, People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1293 ; see also People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [“doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his own conduct induces the commission of error’ ”]; People v. Riazati (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 514, 529 .) Defendant, who in th 2011(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 ].) Doctrine of invited error “The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging [on appeal] an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a ‘conscious and deliberate tactical choice’ to ‘request’ the instruction.” (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 3 P.3d 248 ]; accord, People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1293 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 185 P.3d 727 ]; see also People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 40 , 591 P.2d 63 ] [ | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lucerogreen2 sentences2023Analysis “The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging [on appeal] an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a ‘conscious and deliberate tactical choice’ to ‘request’ the instruction.” (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723 ; accord, People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1293 ; see also People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [“doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his own conduct induces the commission of error’ ”]; People v. Riazati (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 514, 529 .) Defendant, who in th 2011(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 ].) Doctrine of invited error “The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging [on appeal] an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a ‘conscious and deliberate tactical choice’ to ‘request’ the instruction.” (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 3 P.3d 248 ]; accord, People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1293 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 185 P.3d 727 ]; see also People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 40 , 591 P.2d 63 ] [ | 1 | 2 |
People v. Lawleygreen1 sentence2016As for Howard's claim that the trial court's ruling stripped him of his right to present a defense, we observe that application of the ordinary rules of evidence " ' "do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's [state or federal constitutional] right to present a defense." ' " (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1202 ; see also People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 728 .) " ' "Courts retain . . . a traditional and intrinsic power to exercise discretion to control the admission of evidence in the interests of orderly procedure and the avoidance of prejudice." ' " (People v. Lawley ( | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2016As for Howard's claim that the trial court's ruling stripped him of his right to present a defense, we observe that application of the ordinary rules of evidence " ' "do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's [state or federal constitutional] right to present a defense." ' " (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1202 ; see also People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 728 .) " ' "Courts retain . . . a traditional and intrinsic power to exercise discretion to control the admission of evidence in the interests of orderly procedure and the avoidance of prejudice." ' " (People v. Lawley ( | 1 | 1 |
People v. Colegreen2 sentences2011(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 ].) Doctrine of invited error “The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging [on appeal] an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a ‘conscious and deliberate tactical choice’ to ‘request’ the instruction.” (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 3 P.3d 248 ]; accord, People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1293 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 185 P.3d 727 ]; see also People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 40 , 591 P.2d 63 ] [ 2011(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 ].) Doctrine of invited error “The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging [on appeal] an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a ‘conscious and deliberate tactical choice’ to ‘request’ the instruction.” (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 3 P.3d 248 ]; accord, People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1293 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295 , 185 P.3d 727 ]; see also People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 40 , 591 P.2d 63 ] [ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Delgadogreen2 sentences1979The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when “his own conduct induces the commission of error.” (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 266, p. 4257 (italics in original); People v. Delgado (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 242, 254 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 399 ].) We do not think that the prosecutor’s conduct may be characterized as having induced the ruling on the applicability of section 654. 1979The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when “his own conduct induces the commission of error.” (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 266, p. 4257 (italics in original); People v. Delgado (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 242, 254 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 399 ].) We do not think that the prosecutor’s conduct may be characterized as having induced the ruling on the applicability of section 654. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lee
green
1 sentence2023Appellant’s counsel said, “The defense position is just going to be to refer them back to the instructions to look at [Calcrim No.] 572.” “The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his own conduct induces the commission of error.’” (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 .) Furthermore, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appe | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Riazati
green
1 sentence2023Analysis “The doctrine of invited error bars a defendant from challenging [on appeal] an instruction given by the trial court when the defendant has made a ‘conscious and deliberate tactical choice’ to ‘request’ the instruction.” (People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723 ; accord, People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1293 ; see also People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [“doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his own conduct induces the commission of error’ ”]; People v. Riazati (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 514, 529 .) Defendant, who in th | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Wickersham
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057 ; People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 330 .) Such cases generally involve the mere acquiescence of defense counsel in an erroneous action by the court, where it is not possible to tell whether counsel was acting for a tactical reason. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Linton
green
1 sentence2016As for Howard's claim that the trial court's ruling stripped him of his right to present a defense, we observe that application of the ordinary rules of evidence " ' "do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's [state or federal constitutional] right to present a defense." ' " (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1202 ; see also People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 728 .) " ' "Courts retain . . . a traditional and intrinsic power to exercise discretion to control the admission of evidence in the interests of orderly procedure and the avoidance of prejudice." ' " (People v. Lawley ( | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Redevelopment Agency v. City of Berkeley
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 [“The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his own conduct induces the commission of error.’ ”].) The principle of invited error also prevents a party from taking a litigation strategy which “induces the commission of an error.” (Redevelopment Agency v. City of Berkeley (1978) 21 In an apparent reference to his previous Wheeler-Batson error, the District Attorney explained the timing of the motion: “one of my primary goals in this retrial is to avoid another error and I have, at times, been arguing ca | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Bradford
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1057 ; People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 330 .) Such cases generally involve the mere acquiescence of defense counsel in an erroneous action by the court, where it is not possible to tell whether counsel was acting for a tactical reason. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.