holding the defendant waived his ability to challenge the admission a physician’s report that identified him as the perpetrator because defense counsel stated it had “no objection” to the admission of the report
How later courts described this case
- holding the defendant waived his ability to challenge the admission a physician’s report that identified him as the perpetrator because defense counsel stated it had “no objection” to the admission of the report
- noting that “[u]nlike the parents in Blount, [victim’s mother] did not attempt to tie [victim’s] vaginal rashes and overactive gag reflex to anything she learned during counseling or to anything she learned from a counselor[]”
- “ A party cannot ask a trial court to do something and, when the court does it, complain on appeal that the court erred. . . . When, as here, a party not only forfeits an error by failing to object to the admission of evidence, but specifically waives any objection, the party cannot complain on appeal that the court erroneously admitted that evidence[]”
- noting that invited errors reflect a “knowing relinquishment of a right” and amount to a waiver
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VENTERS, J.,
concurring in result only:
I concur in result only with the Majority opinion. I agree with Justice Noble’s dissent that KRE 404(b) was violated by introduction of evidence of crimes other than the singular offenses charged, that the testimony about the victim’s behavior violated, at least marginally, our long-standing prohibition against evidence based upon child’s sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, and that defense counsel’s opening statement did not open the door so as to justify the subsequent bolstering of the witness’s testimony. Nevertheless, I do not join Justice Noble’s dissent because none of the errors were preserved for appellate review and I cannot conclude that even the accumulation of those errors amounted to palpable error.