holding that defendant may not complain of error he invited, and further holding that reversal cannot be based on such error
How later courts described this case
- holding that defendant may not complain of error he invited, and further holding that reversal cannot be based on such error
- testimony of prosecution expert could not properly be impeached through affidavits and testimony of defense experts presented at hearing on motion for new trial, especially when such evidence was readily available during the trial; such evidence did not constitute newly discovered evidence supporting new trial; “Impeachment of this nature should have been done through the presentation of witnesses at trial and through cross- examination
- "The answers to which Appellant now objects resulted purely through the persistence of his own counsel. We have often recognized the well established principal that a defendant may not complain of error which he has invited, and that reversal cannot be predicated upon such error."
- “We have often recognized the well established principal [sic] that a defendant may not complain of error which he has invited, and that reversal cannot be predicated upon such error.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PARKS, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring:
I am compelled to write separately to address appellant’s second assignment of error in greater detail. It is utterly incomprehensible that a professional of Joyce Gilchrist’s alleged competence wantonly violated the terms of a district court order. As the majority opinion so accurately proclaims, such deliberate violations will always be considered error. However, I must agree that Ms. Gilchrist’s transgressions did not amount to reversible error under the facts of this case. It is apparent from a review of the record that defense counsel’s inaction, which indeed must be considered to have been an implied waiver of appellant’s right to examination of the hair evidence, outweighed the disregarded responsibilities of Ms. Gilchrist. Therefore, I concur in the result reached by the majority. I wish to stress, however, that such a violation will not escape the type of serious consequences herein eluded under a less compelling set of circumstances.