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 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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. Jonesgreen2 sentences2025Defense counsel asked the victim, “Isn’t it true that you and your mother are lying about this incident?” and the victim responded, “[N]o.” “Under the doctrine of invited response, the proportionality of the response, as well as the invitation, must be considered to determine whether the error, which might otherwise require reversal, is shielded from appellate relief.” People v Jones, 468 Mich 345, 353 ; 662 NW2d 376 (2003). 2025Defense counsel asked the victim, “Isn’t it true that you and your mother are lying about this incident?” and the victim responded, “[N]o.” “Under the doctrine of invited response, the proportionality of the response, as well as the invitation, must be considered to determine whether the error, which might otherwise require reversal, is shielded from appellate relief.” People v Jones, 468 Mich 345, 353 ; 662 NW2d 376 (2003). | 1 | 6 |
People v. Kahleygreen1 sentence2011The Court of Appeals erred in relying on the invited response rule applied in People v Kahley, 277 Mich App 182, 183-184 (2007), in which the polygraph testimony was volunteered by a police witness, rather than, as in this case, intentionally introduced by the prosecution by posing a clearly improper question for the sole purpose of eliciting inadmissible polygraph evidence that conveyed to the jury the implication that codefendant Blair Lindsay’s testimony against the defendant was truthful. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2007Thomas, supra at 454 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Young
green
1 sentence2003Young, supra. We now apply this doctrine as an aid to determine whether the prosecutor’s improper introduction of evidence at trial affected the fairness of the trial. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.