Cited by

“The purpose of the [invited error] doctrine is to prevent a party from ‘inject[ing] error in the record and then profit[ing] from it on appeal.’” ¶ 11 (2001) (second and third alterations in original) ().

Logan, 200 Ariz. at 566, ¶ 11 (); see also Lucero, 223 Ariz. at 136, ¶ 20 (“expressly requesting the superior court not to give a lesser-included offense instruction amounts to invited error.”).

¶ 11 (2001) (“The purpose of the [invited error] doctrine is to prevent a party from ‘injecting error in the record and then profiting from it on appeal.’” ()); ¶¶ 8–9 (App. 2009) (finding the doctrine applied where the defendant “informed the trial court that he did not want a lesser 36 STATE V. ALLEN Opinion of the Cour

(“One may not deliberately inject error in the record and then profit from it on appeal.”).

at 566, ¶ 11 (alterations in original) ().

at 566, ¶ 11 (alterations in original) ().

§ 13- 1203(A)(2); (finding other act evidence “was independently admissible .

2406 , 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); , (once officers formed intent to arrest defendant, “[t]hat arrest could not be defeated by [a] retreat”).

at 566, ¶ 11 (“The purpose of the [invited error] doctrine is to prevent a party from ‘injecting error in the record and then profiting from it on appeal.’”) ().

10 LUND v. LUND Decision of the Court 566, ¶ 11 (2001) (noting a party may not inject error into the record and then profit from it on appeal) ().

at 566, ¶ 11, 30 P.3d at 633 ( ).

reverse conviction based on erroneous jury instruction requested by defendant, and noting that the policy of reversing eases when error occurred at defendant’s invitation “would, indeed, be unwise, for it must readily occur to any one [sic] that the pursuit of such a course could not be fraught otherwise than with most mischievous consequences in the administration of the law”); , (holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived “[b]e-cause the instruction given was the one expressl

“The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent a party from ‘inject[ing] error in the record and then profit[ing] from it on appeal.’” Paris-Sheldon reasons Duron and Alvarez do not control because those cases “did not in any way state that the defendant could not have waited until the charges were refiled and then moved to dismiss them under the new cause number.” As we explain, however, that procedure was imp

¶ 11 This Court addressed a

The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent a party from “inject[ing] error in the record and then profiting] from it on appeal.”

See, -33 , -59 (1989) (finding that the police entered a home within the exigent circumstance exception when responding to a domestic violence call); , (holding that, because “the act of calling the police was likely to enrage further the assailant,” exigent circumstances existed in responding to a domestic violence call at a home to which the police previously had been called regarding an assault).

Id.; , (in responding to call of spousal assault, officers must have freedom to prevent further abuse; act of calling police was likely to further enrage the assailant).

(“In responding to a call regarding spousal assault, officers must have the freedom to prevent further abuse.”) (citation omitted).

this court stated: Because the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel, that issue is waived.

(“In responding to a call regarding spousal assault, officers must have the freedom to prevent further abuse.”); (citing 2 W. La-Fave, Search & Seizure 605 (2d ed. 1987)).