party may not invite error in Indiana

2020See Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind.1995) (“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.”). [19] In this portion of his argument, Garretson also contends that the State improperly emphasized Mengedoht’s conviction during closing statements when the deputy prosecutor argued to the jury that he and Mengedoht jointly possessed the methamphetamine.

2018That said, to the extent that Norris argues that the prosecutor's statements constitute prosecutorial misconduct, he invited any such error. " 'A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.' " Booher v. State , 773 N.E.2d 814 , 822 (Ind. 2002) (citing Ellis v. State , 707 N.E.2d 797 , 803 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Kingery v. State , 659 N.E.2d 490 , 494 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied ) ). [17] Lastly, any probable persuasive effect was further lessened by the overall strength of the State's case.

2020“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.” Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 823 (Ind. 2002).

2020“A party may not invite error, then Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1895| April 22, 2020 Page 11 of 19 later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.” Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 823 (Ind. 2002). [6] While it is true that Mother orally moved to dismiss the TPR petitions at a hearing in February of 2019 and Parents filed motions to dismiss in March of 2019, their actions and omissions, prior and subsequent to those stated above, invited the untimely factfinding hearing.3 First, on November 14, 2

2018Assuming without deciding that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Robinson’s motion to strike the police report, we can provide no relief on Robinson’s invited error. “‘A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.’” Booher v. State, 773 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A04-1710-CT-2441 | December 31, 2018 Page 18 of 46 N.E.2d 814 , 822 (Ind. 2002) (citing Ellis v. State, 707 N.E.2d 797, 803 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (

2018That said, to the extent that Norris argues that the prosecutor's statements constitute prosecutorial misconduct, he invited any such error. " 'A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.' " Booher v. State , 773 N.E.2d 814 , 822 (Ind. 2002) (citing Ellis v. State , 707 N.E.2d 797 , 803 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Kingery v. State , 659 N.E.2d 490 , 494 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied ) ). [17] Lastly, any probable persuasive effect was further lessened by the overall strength of the State's case.

2016In other words, “[d]efendants cannot complain of errors that they induced the trial court to make; a party may not invite error and then rely on such error as a reason for reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.” Berry v. State, 574 N.E.2d 960, 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), trans. denied; see also Cole v. State, 970 Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A05-1512-CR-2151 | November 17, 2016 Page 7 of 12 N.E.2d 779 , 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (stating that we will not reverse a conviction on the basis of invited error). [16] Kee invited error by

2016In other words, “[d]efendants cannot complain of errors that they induced the trial court to make; a party may not invite error and then rely on such error as a reason for reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.” Berry v. State, 574 N.E.2d 960, 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), trans. denied. [15] Here, although the State did elicit the testimony of which Neace complains, it was on re-direct.

2020We need not reach Wife’s alternative argument because we can resolve this appeal on the initial dispositive issue. 6 “Invited error, which is based on the legal principle of estoppel, forbids a party from taking ‘advantage of an error that [ ]he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of h[is] own neglect or misconduct.’” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005) (“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.”)

2017In contrast to fundamental error, “the ‘doctrine of invited error is grounded in estoppel[]’ and forbids a party to ‘take advantage of an error that [he] commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.’” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)), reh’g denied, cert. denied. “[F]undamental error gives [appellate courts] leeway to mitigate the consequences of counsel’s oversights, but invited error precludes relief from counsel’s strategic decisions gone awry.” Brewington, 7 N.E.3d at 97

2016Pinkton v. State, 786 N.E.2d 796, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied.

2012Pinkton v. State, 786 N.E.2d 796, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

2013See Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977, 997 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that a party may not invite error and then later argue the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error), trans. denied.

2012“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.” Hape v. State, 903 N.E.2d 977, 997 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

2012See Dumas v. State, 803 N.E.2d 1113, 1121 (Ind. 2004) (“A party may not invite error and then later argue the error supports reversal.”).

2012Ferguson was successful on post- conviction because his repeat sexual offender enhancement was vacated, shaving four years off his sentence. 2 The State does not argue on appeal that Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor is a lesser-included offense of Class B felony child molesting, and for purposes of this appeal we presume that it is not. 4 failure to object to an instruction waive any challenge to that instruction on appeal, Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169, 1178 (Ind. 2011), reh’g denied, but more significantly it is well-settled law that a party may not invite error and then later

2020We need not reach Wife’s alternative argument because we can resolve this appeal on the initial dispositive issue. 6 “Invited error, which is based on the legal principle of estoppel, forbids a party from taking ‘advantage of an error that [ ]he commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of h[is] own neglect or misconduct.’” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005) (“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.”)

2018“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.” Cole v. State, 28 N.E.3d 1126, 1136 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind. 1995)).

2017In contrast to fundamental error, “the ‘doctrine of invited error is grounded in estoppel[]’ and forbids a party to ‘take advantage of an error that [he] commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.’” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)), reh’g denied, cert. denied. “[F]undamental error gives [appellate courts] leeway to mitigate the consequences of counsel’s oversights, but invited error precludes relief from counsel’s strategic decisions gone awry.” Brewington, 7 N.E.3d at 97

2017In contrast to fundamental error, “the ‘doctrine of invited error is grounded in estoppel[]’ and forbids a party to ‘take advantage of an error that [he] commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or misconduct.’” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 975 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005)), reh’g denied, cert. denied. “[F]undamental error gives [appellate courts] leeway to mitigate the consequences of counsel’s oversights, but invited error precludes relief from counsel’s strategic decisions gone awry.” Brewington, 7 N.E.3d at 97

2016“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.” Gamble v. State, 831 N.E.2d 178, 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citation omitted), trans. denied.

2013See Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 822 (Ind. 2002) (“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.”) (citations omitted); Robles v. State, 705 N.E.2d 183, 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (stating that a party may not sit idly by, permit the court to act in a claimed erroneous manner, and then attempt to take advantage of the alleged error at a later time, and that a timely objection must be lodged so that the alleged error may be promptly corrected by the trial court); Poindexter v. State, 664

2013See Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 822 (Ind. 2002) (“A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal, because error invited by the complaining party is not reversible error.”) (citations omitted); Robles v. State, 705 N.E.2d 183, 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (stating that a party may not sit idly by, permit the court to act in a claimed erroneous manner, and then attempt to take advantage of the alleged error at a later time, and that a timely objection must be lodged so that the alleged error may be promptly corrected by the trial court); Poindexter v. State, 664

2013Hardy v. State, 786 N.E.2d 783, 787 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied.

2012Ferguson was successful on post- conviction because his repeat sexual offender enhancement was vacated, shaving four years off his sentence. 2 The State does not argue on appeal that Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor is a lesser-included offense of Class B felony child molesting, and for purposes of this appeal we presume that it is not. 4 failure to object to an instruction waive any challenge to that instruction on appeal, Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169, 1178 (Ind. 2011), reh’g denied, but more significantly it is well-settled law that a party may not invite error and then later

2012Reinhart v. Reinhart, 938 N.E.2d 788, 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

2003Oldham v. State, 779 N.E.2d 1162, 1171 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied (citing Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind.1995).

1989Accord, Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Thomas (1984), Ind.App., 463 N.E.2d 315, 319 ; and Hormuth Drywall & Painting Service, Inc. v. Erectioneers, Inc. (1978), 178 Ind.App. 16, 19 , 381 N.E.2d 490, 493 (a party may not invite error by action or silence and then successfully gain relief on appeal).

1989Accord, Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Thomas (1984), Ind.App., 463 N.E.2d 315, 319 ; and Hormuth Drywall & Painting Service, Inc. v. Erectioneers, Inc. (1978), 178 Ind.App. 16, 19 , 381 N.E.2d 490, 493 (a party may not invite error by action or silence and then successfully gain relief on appeal).

1989Accord, Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Thomas (1984), Ind.App., 463 N.E.2d 315, 319 ; and Hormuth Drywall & Painting Service, Inc. v. Erectioneers, Inc. (1978), 178 Ind.App. 16, 19 , 381 N.E.2d 490, 493 (a party may not invite error by action or silence and then successfully gain relief on appeal).