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) ().

State 7 -66, ¶ 9 (2001).

¶ 8 (2001) (“[W]hen a party requests an erroneous instruction, any resulting error is invited and the party waives his right to challenge the instruction on appeal.”); see also Krone, 182 Ariz. at 323 (“A defendant should not have a lesser included instruction forced upon him.”).

Caruthers, 235 Ariz. at 7, ¶ 23; ¶ 9 (2001) (“If an error is invited, we do not consider whether the alleged error is fundamental, for doing so would run counter to the purposes of the invited error doctrine.”).

–66, ¶ 9 (2001) (“[W]e will not find reversible error when the party complaining of it invited the error.”).

-66, ¶ 9 (2001) (explaining a reviewing court “will not find reversible error when the party complaining of it invited the 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

(RAJIS not approved by our supreme court).

- 66, ¶ 9 (2001) (appellate courts “will not find reversible error when the party complaining of it invited the error”).

9,4 the RAJIs have not been approved by the Arizona Supreme Court, ¶ 12 (2001); see Life Inv'rs Ins.

¶13 The invited-error doctrine directs that appellate courts “will not find reversible error when the party complaining of it invited the error.” –66, ¶ 9 (2001) (collecting cases).

-66, ¶ 9 (2001) (“If an error is invited, we do not consider whether the alleged error is fundamental, for doing so would run counter to the purposes of the invited error doctrine.

¶15 “The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” ¶ 14 (2017); ¶ 11 (2001).

pprovals for any jury instructions.” As a result, the State Bar of Arizona created standard jury instructions and renamed them the “Revised Arizona Jury Instructions.” A notice accompanying the instructions warns users of the new RAJI that “these instructions, as a group, have not received any approval from the Arizona Supreme Court.” ¶ 12 (2001) (quoting RAJI (Criminal) iii (2000)).

–66, ¶¶ 8–9 (2001) (defendant who requests an erroneous instruction waives the right to challenge that instruction on appeal, even as a matter of fundamental error); –19, ¶¶ 21–22 (App. 2009) (defendant invited error by submitting instruction that carelessly reflected the State’s

¶20 The invited error doctrine describes the well-established judicial principle that appellate courts “will not find reversible error when the party complaining of it invited the error.” –66, ¶ 9 (2001) (collecting cases).

¶ 61 (2013) (finding that a defendant's stipulation to admit evidence "preclude[d] him from asserting on appeal that [the] admission was error"); -66, ¶¶ 8-9, 15 (2001) (refusing to consider claims of error in a jury instruction when the trial court gave the instruction as requested by the defendant).

-66, ¶ 9 (2001); ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2008).

¶ 50 (2007) (holding defendant invited error regarding admission of other act evidence when the trial court asked defense counsel if he objected to the evidence and counsel responded he did not); –66 ¶ 9 (2001) (declining to address an issue raised as a result of invited error).