Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lucero, 220 P.3d 249.

52 citing documents.

State v. Hendricks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Hendricks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Cordova-Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Cordova-Wilkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
An error is invited when the defendant takes “independent affirmative unequivocal action to initiate the error and did not merely fail to object to the error or merely acquiesce in it.” ¶¶ 20-21 (App. 2009).
Litmath v. US Fire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Litmath v. US Fire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 17 (App. 2009) (“[I]nvited error precludes a party who causes or initiates an error from profiting from the error on appeal .
State v. Medlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Medlin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
At most, however, any error was invited by Medlin’s defense attorney and Medlin cannot “profit[] from the error on appeal.” 135, ¶¶ 12, 17 (App. 2009); ¶ 79 (App. 2009).
Miner v. Miner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Miner v. Miner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Palmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A party 4 STATE v. PALMER Decision of the Court “invites prejudicial testimony by being the first party to elicit the testimony.” ¶ 20 (App. 2009).
State of Arizona v. Demitres Robertson 468 P.3d 1217 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Demitres Robertson 468 P.3d 1217 Ariz. 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
16 STATE v. BALLI Decision of the Court ¶41 “[E]xpressly requesting the superior court not to give a lesser-included offense instruction amounts to invited error precluding the defendant from arguing on appeal that the instruction should have been given.” ¶ 20 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Brock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
To determine whether the invited error doctrine should preclude a party from raising an allegation of error on appeal, courts “must look ‘to the source of the error, which must be the party urging the error.’” ¶ 17 (App. 2009) (quoting Logan, 200 Ariz. at 566, ¶ 11); see also Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 145, 4 ¶ 46 (App. 2000).
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Under the invited-error doctrine, a party that causes or initiates the error is prevented from “profiting from the error on appeal.” ¶ 17 (App. 2009).
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Phillips Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 18 (App. 2009) (cautioning against apply the invited error doctrine “unless the facts clearly show that the error was actually invited by the appellant”).
State v. Dickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Dickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
STATE v. DICKSON Decision of the Court 138, ¶¶ 30–31 (App. 2009).
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bruce Wayne O'Laughlin Jr. 372 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶¶ 20-21, (party must take “independent affirmative unequivocal action to initiate” error before invited error rule applies).
State v. Manweiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Manweiler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Lucero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Lucero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Leibly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Leibly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ng to instruct the jury in “defense of property.” His argument and citation, however, refer to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13- 407 (2010), which describes the justification defense for use of physical force in “defense of premises.” 2 ¶ 32
State of Arizona v. Eslyn Adrian Villa 335 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Eslyn Adrian Villa 335 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Cravets Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Buruato Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ltd. P’ship, ¶ 23, ¶ 31, (“[I]f the party complaining on appeal affirmatively and independently initiated the error, he .
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McDonald Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Instead, as we repeatedly have held, we will not find reversible error when the party complaining of it invited the error.”); ¶ 17, (“[I]nvited error precludes a party who causes or initiates an error from profiting from the error on appeal.
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“Mere acquiescence is insufficient to find invited error; the party must have ‘affirmatively and independently initiated the error.’” ¶ 7, ( ¶ 31, ).
State of Arizona v. Carlos J. Torres 314 P.3d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Carlos J. Torres 314 P.3d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Mere acquiescence is insufficient to find invited error; the party must have “affirmatively and independently initiated the error.”
State v. Buot 306 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Buot 306 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013