Opinion ID: 2049354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The final issue presented on this appeal relates to the content of instruction 5 as given.

Text: By proposed instruction 5 trial court initially listed elements of the crime charged and stated each must be established beyond a reasonable doubt before the defendant could be found guilty. Overmann's attorney objected to the proposal and requested trial court insert something to remind the jury an entrapment defense had been invoked. When the instructions, in revised final form, were submitted to defendant's attorney he specifically stated, presently I am now satisfied and withdraw the objection to instruction Number 5. This served to eliminate any right on the part of defendant to now complain regarding the involved instruction. In the first place, any error which may have inhered in instruction 5 was apparently invited by defendant. Therefore he cannot now be heard to complain. See State v. Osborne, 258 Iowa 390, 393, 139 N.W.2d 177 (1965); cf. State v. Hammer, 246 Iowa 392, 399-400, 66 N.W.2d 490 (1954). And, since defendant specifically withdrew his objection to the revised instruction it follows error, if any, was waived. See State v. Dague, 206 N.W.2d 93, 95 (Iowa 1973). The assignment here considered is without merit. Affirmed.