Invited Error Doctrine Reinforced in STATE v. HENDERSON

Invited Error Doctrine Reinforced in STATE v. HENDERSON

Introduction

In The State of Washington v. Jerome Larnedo Henderson, 114 Wn. 2d 867 (1990), the Supreme Court of Washington addressed a pivotal issue concerning appellate review of jury instructions solicited by the defendant during trial. Henderson was prosecuted for attempted second-degree burglary, ultimately securing a conviction upheld by both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals. The core issue revolved around whether a defendant can challenge the constitutionality of jury instructions that they themselves requested during the trial on appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, thereby upholding Henderson's conviction for attempted second-degree burglary. The court held that a defendant cannot appeal based on errors in jury instructions that the defendant had requested during the trial. This decision reinforced the doctrine of "invited error," which prevents defendants from seeking appellate review on the basis of errors they invited by requesting specific jury instructions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that shaped the court's decision:

  • STATE v. JOHNSON, 100 Wn.2d 607 (1983): Held that it is error for a trial court to fail in its instructions to specify and define the crime intended in a burglary prosecution.
  • STATE v. BERGERON, 105 Wn.2d 1 (1985): Overruled the specific instruction requirement established in Johnson, thereby enlarging the scope of burglary offenses.
  • STATE v. BOYER, 91 Wn.2d 342 (1979): Established that defendants cannot appeal errors in jury instructions they requested.
  • BALL v. SMITH, 87 Wn.2d 717 (1976): Reinforced the principle that defendants cannot seek appellate review of instructions they proffered.
  • STATE v. MAK, 105 Wn.2d 692 (1986): Allowed review for plain error where defendants failed to object to instructions and did not propose them deliberately.

Additionally, the dissenting opinion by Justice Utter cited State v. Rice, 110 Wn.2d 577 (1988), as a case where the invited error doctrine was not applied due to constitutional concerns, suggesting a more flexible approach in certain circumstances.

Legal Reasoning

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Andersen, focused on upholding the doctrine of invited error to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. By allowing defendants to challenge the constitutionality of jury instructions they requested, courts could be subject to strategic manipulations where defendants might induce errors to secure appellate victories.

The court emphasized that maintaining the rule prevents defendants from deceiving trial courts and ensures that appellate courts are not burdened with reviewing errors that defendants have facilitated. The majority also highlighted that the error claimed by Henderson was at his invitation, thereby invoking established precedents that bar such appeals.

However, the dissent, led by Justice Utter, argued for a more nuanced application. The dissent contended that since Henderson did not intentionally mislead the court and the error involved a significant constitutional right, the appellate review should be permissible. The dissent referenced cases where courts overruled the strict application of the invited error doctrine in the face of fundamental due process violations.

Impact

The decision in STATE v. HENDERSON significantly reinforced the doctrine of invited error within Washington state jurisprudence. By affirming that defendants cannot challenge jury instructions they requested, the court provided clarity and consistency in appellate review processes. This ruling discourages tactical manipulations by defendants during trials and upholds the reliability of jury instruction mechanisms.

Future cases in Washington will likely adhere to this precedent, limiting the ability of defendants to appeal on the basis of errors they induced. However, the dissenting opinion leaves room for future judicial reconsideration, especially in cases where substantial constitutional rights are at stake and the error may not have been intentionally invited.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Invited Error Doctrine

The "invited error" doctrine prevents a party from appealing a trial court's decision based on an error that the party themselves induced. In essence, if a defendant requests a particular jury instruction and later claims that the instruction was erroneous, they are barred from such an appeal because they invited the error by making the request.

Ex Post Facto Law

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law. The Constitution prohibits such laws because they can unfairly punish individuals based on standards that did not exist at the time of the conduct.

Due Process Clause

The Due Process Clause, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, ensures that the government respects all legal rights owed to a person. It acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by requiring fair procedures.

Jury Instructions

Jury instructions are directions given by the judge to the jury outlining the laws relevant to the case and explaining how those laws apply to the evidence presented. These instructions are crucial for guiding the jury's deliberations and ensuring a fair trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in STATE v. HENDERSON serves as a reinforcement of the invited error doctrine, emphasizing that defendants cannot exploit trial requests to create grounds for appellate challenges. While the majority upheld this principle to maintain judicial integrity and prevent manipulative legal strategies, the dissent highlighted the necessity of flexibility in cases involving significant constitutional rights. This judgment underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain between adhering to established legal doctrines and safeguarding fundamental judicial fairness.

For legal practitioners and defendants alike, this ruling clarifies the boundaries of appellate review concerning jury instructions. It emphasizes the importance of strategic litigation conduct and the potential limitations on post-trial appellate remedies when errors are self-induced. As such, STATE v. HENDERSON is a pivotal case in understanding the interplay between trial procedures and appellate review within Washington state's legal system.

Case Details

Year: 1990
Court: The Supreme Court of Washington. En Banc.

Judge(s)

ANDERSEN, J.UTTER, J. (dissenting)

Attorney(S)

Karen Morth of Washington Appellate Defender Association, for petitioner. Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney, and Cynthia S.C. Gannett, Deputy, for respondent.

Comments