State v. Saunders

A party invites error when the party is "actively instrumental in bringing about" an alleged error that can also happen “where counsel’s failure to object was inadvertent or unintentional.” State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210 (2009). Tenbusch v. Linn County, 172 Or App 172 (2001).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s admission of evidence that Defendant acted with a sexual purpose. On appeal, Defendant alleged that the trial court erred by admitting two excerpts in the redacted documents into evidence. In response, the State argued that Defendant invited the error when Defendant's attorney made statements that suggested he identified all the objectionable excerpts. A party invites error when the party is "actively instrumental in bringing about" an alleged error that can also happen “where counsel’s failure to object was inadvertent or unintentional." State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210 (2009). Tenbusch v. Linn County, 172 Or App 172 (2001). The Court held that Defendant was instrumental in bringing the error because Defendant’s attorney expressly assumed the task in identifying objectionable content. Affirmed.