claim of instructional error in District of Columbia

2025Therefore, we hold that appellant waived this claim of instructional error.”).18 18 Ms. Ramey argues that she did not waive this claim because the invited error doctrine “‘precludes a party from asserting as error on appeal a course that [they have] induced the trial court to take.’” Young v. United States, 305 A.3d 402 , 430 (D.C. 2023) (quoting Preacher v. United States, 934 A.2d 363, 368 (D.C. 2007)).

2021Id. at 416 ; see also Plummer v. United States, 43 A.3d 260, 267, 270 (D.C. 2012) (holding appellant waived claim that trial judge was disqualified where he had knowledge of the grounds for disqualification and “expressly declared that he did not object to the judge presiding over the trial”).

2021“Under the test for plain error, an appellant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affected [her] substantial rights,” which will nevertheless not warrant reversal “unless (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Fortune v. United States, 59 A.3d 949, 954 (D.C. 2013) (internal quotations omitted).

2019When reviewing a claim of instructional error, we examine the instructions “in their entirety.” Buskey, 148 A.3d at 1205-06 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2001See id. at 916. 1 The government’s main argument is that, unlike Gathy, appellant failed to preserve the claim of instructional error, and that under the appropriate “plain error” standard of review reversal is not warranted.