Cited by

(“If a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected [their] substantial rights, we need not consider the other factors.”).

(“If a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other factors.”).

(noting that where a defendant fails to establish any one factor of the plain-error test “we need not consider the other factors”).

See, (stating that “[t]he invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that he invited or could have prevented in the court below” (emphasis added)); (stating that “[u]nder the invited er

does not apply to plain errors.”

d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007).

“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that [they] invited or could have prevented in the court below.” d 249, 258 (Minn. 2007).

See, (stating that “[t]he invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that he invited or could have prevented in the court below” (emphasis added)); (stating that “[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party cannot

(“If a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other factors.”).

A criminal defendant “cannot on appeal raise his own trial strategy as a basis for reversal.”

Generally, “[u]nder the invited error doctrine, a party cannot assert on appeal an error that he invited or that could have been prevented at the district court.” (noting that “a defendant cannot on appeal raise his own trial strategy as a basis for reversal”).

mpeached by testimony establishing that a juror (Minn. 1968); (2) that we assess whether we have discretion to grant relief for all categories of unpreserved errors (invited errors, consented -to errors, and unobjected-to errors) under the plain error doctrine, –49 (Minn. 2008); ; State v. Goelz , State v. Giese , ; and (3) that we may grant relief for invited errors that seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings

(noting that defendant has “heavy burden” to show error impacted his rights); State v. Goelz , (“If a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not co nsider the other factors.”).

Finally, Peterson points to the fact that the district court did not give a limiting instruction regardin g the OFP, as the court did in State v. Goelz

( stating that if we conclude that a 29 claimed error did not affect a defendant’s substantial rights, “we need not consider the other factors”).

“The 7 invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that he invited or could have prevented in the court below.” State v. Goelz

See State v. Goelz , (holding that a defendant’s trial strategy not to object to evidence in order to develop defense testimony and argument “does not fall within the plain error exception to the invited error doctrine” because it precluded the defendant from “establish[ing] that his substantial rights were violated b

12 affected his substantial rights, [this court] need not consider the other factors.”

To address harmless error properly when a constitutional right is not implicated, the revi ewing court considers “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the wrongfully admitted evidence significantly affected the verdict.” State v. Goelz , (quotation omitted).

(“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that he invited or could have prevented in the court below.

When reviewi ng an alleged error under the p lain-error rule, “[i]f a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected hi s substantial rights, we need not consider the other factors.” State v. Goelz

An appellant “generally bears the burden of persuasion with respect to the third factor.”

See State v. Goelz , (stating that the invited-error doctrine does not apply to plain errors).

“[Appellant] cannot on appeal raise his own trial strategy as a basis for reversal.” (d 400, 407 (Minn. 1983)).

P. 31.02; Gatson, d at 146-47; (analyzing invited error under plain-error test).

(“If a defendant fails to establish that the claimed error affected his substantial rights, we need not consider the other factors.”).

Boutilier contends only that the district court’s admission of the OFP is inconsistent with the supreme court’s decision in 5

“The invited error doctrine prevents a party from asserting an error on appeal that he invited or could have prevented in the court below.”