Cited by

¶ 18 (2020) (holding a party may invoke invited error only when the party asserting the error is responsible for it).

For invited error to apply, the record must demonstrate the defendant “engaged in affirmative, independent action to create the error or argue in favor of it.” ¶ 18 (2020).

¶ 18 (2020) (holding a party may invoke invited error only when the party asserting the error is responsible for it).

¶ 15 (2020) (“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” (citation modified)).

It applies only “when the facts show the party urging the error initiated, or at least actively defended, the error rather than passively acquiescing in it.” ¶ 16 (2020).

¶15 “[P]rinciples of contract law typically govern plea agreements,” ¶ 24 (2020), because, like commercial contracts, plea agreements represent “bargained-for quid pro quo[s],” United States v. Partida-Parra, 859 F.2d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 1988).

¶ 44 (2011); ¶ 15 (2020) (“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from injecting error into the record and then profiting from it on appeal.” (quotation omitted)).

¶ 9 (2020) (directing appellate courts to “heed the principles underlying the waiver doctrine intended ‘to prevent the court from deciding cases with no research assistance or analytical input from the parties’” (citation omitted)).

¶16 “[R]egardless of a defendant’s agreement to a term, the state may not authorize an illegal condition in a plea agreement, nor may a court enforce an illegal provision, because ‘parties cannot confer authority on the court that the law proscribes.’” ¶ 25 (2020) (quoting State ex rel.

we should do so only upon the most cogent of reasons being presented.”); (appellate courts should avoid deciding cases with no research assistance or analytical input from parties).

We remind our appellate court that, “[a]lthough [they] may choose to address issues the parties fail to address in the briefs, they should heed the principles underlying the waiver doctrine intended ‘to prevent the court from deciding cases with no research assistance or analytical input from the parties.’” –59 ¶ 9 (2020) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Meiners 3 STATE V. PORTER Opinion of the Court v. Indus.

¶ 15 (2020) (explaining invited error).