Cited by

State v. Goodale, 144 N.H. 224, 227 (1999) (quotation and brackets omitted) (explaining that under the invited error doctrine, “a party may not avail himself of error into which he has led the trial court, intentionally or unintentionally”).

State v. Goodale, 144 N.H. 224, 229-30 (1999) (affirming the defendant’s conviction, despite finding that he had been subjected to an unfair adjudicatory procedure, because he failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the procedure).

We have 3 likewise held that “‘a party may not avail himself of error into which he has led the trial court, intentionally or unintentionally.’” State v. Goodale, 144 N.H. 224, 227 (1999) (brackets omitted) (quoting 5 C.J.S.

Div. R. 3.8(B); cf. State v. Goodale, 144 N.H. 224, 227 (1999) (discussing invited error doctrine).

Appeal and Error § 872, at 166 (2007) (“Under the doctrine of ‘invited error,’ an appellant may not complain on appeal that a court has granted the appellant’s own request.”); cf. also State v. Goodale, 144 N.H. 224, 227 (1999).

Although we acknowledge that this case essentially presented a credibility contest between the defendant and the victim, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the additional impeachment value of his proposed inquiry into the victim’s 2010 application to renew her driver’s license would not have affected the verdict.

“Accordingly, the right of trial by an impartial jury is not implicated in this case.” State v. Goodale, 144 N.H. 224, 228 (1999); see State v. Rideout, 143 N.H. 363, 366 (1999) (“Generally, in a criminal case, a defendant alleging juror bias bears the burden to demonstrate actual prejudice.”); see also Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 86 (1988) (any claim that the jury was not impartial must focus upon the jurors who ultimately sat).

Thus, the State asserts that the invited error doctrine precludes the defendant from availing himself “of error into which he has led the trial court, intentionally or unintentionally.” State v. Goodale, 144 N.H. 224, 227 (1999).

Specifically, the State argues that we should decide this case under the doctrine of invited error.

State v. Goodale, 144 N.H. 224, 227 (1999) (under “invited error” doctrine, party may not avail himself of error into which he has led the trial court).

The State bears the burden of proving that an error was harmless.

Thus, assuming, without deciding, that special instructions were necessary, we find no error in the trial court’s jury instructions because the defendant cannot now avail himself of the very error into which he led the trial court, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

An error is harmless if we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not affect the verdict.

The State bears the burden of proving that an error was harmless.

its [supervisory] piowers,” in that the assistant county attorney acknowledged at argument on the motion to reconsider that “[i]f the [court’s] decision was made based on prosecutorial misconduct, that would be a different matter.” “Under the ‘invited error’ doctrine, a party may not avail himself of error into which he has led the trial court, intentionally or unintentionally.” State v. Goodale, 144 N.H. 224, 227, 740 A.2d 1026, 1029 (1999) (quotations and brackets omitted).