Opinion ID: 1201575
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the prohibited testimony invited?

Text: The state properly concedes that evidence of Defendant's prior criminal record was inadmissible in this case where Defendant did not testify. State v. Bailey, 160 Ariz. 277, 280, 772 P.2d 1130, 1133 (1989). The state argues, however, that defense counsel's questions invited any error. The invited error doctrine applies to situations `where evidence adduced or comments made by one party make otherwise irrelevant evidence highly relevant or require some response or rebuttal.' State v. Woods, 141 Ariz. 446, 455, 687 P.2d 1201, 1210 (1984) (quoting Pool v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 98, 103, 677 P.2d 261, 266 (1984)). The doctrine prevents a defendant from introducing forbidden evidence and then seeking reversal based on its erroneous introduction. We have so held on numerous occasions. See, e.g., State v. Cook, 170 Ariz. 40, 52, 821 P.2d 731, 743 (1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 137, 121 L.Ed.2d 90 (1992); State v. Stoneman, 115 Ariz. 594, 596, 566 P.2d 1340, 1342 (1977). To hold otherwise would allow defendants to avoid conviction simply by eliciting inadmissible testimony. Cf. State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318, 320, 487 P.2d 385, 387 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 921, 92 S.Ct. 1781, 32 L.Ed.2d 121 (1972). While neither side in this case purposefully interjected inadmissible testimony, we believe that responsibility for its introduction lies with defense counsel. Defense counsel knew that Chambers learned of Defendant's criminal record during his post-arrest interview. At a pre-trial voluntariness hearing, the prosecutor questioned Chambers about this issue in the presence of defense counsel: Q. [the prosecutor]: At the time you were interviewing the defendant, had you been made aware of whether or not he had an arrest history?       A. [Chambers]: He told me himself of being in prison in California and Arizona, but he refused to discuss details of that with me. R.T., May 11, 1990, at 49 (emphasis added). Given this pre-trial testimony, defense counsel's question squarely and directly invited Chambers to reiterate his prior testimony. Defendant makes much of Detective Chambers' extensive experience and argues that any culpability lies with Chambers because he should have known that his response was inadmissible. It is true that an experienced police officer should understand that such testimony is generally prohibited and, in any event, ought to be so admonished before testifying. See, e.g., State v. Brewer, 110 Ariz. 12, 15-16, 514 P.2d 1008, 1011-12 (1973). It is equally true, however, that an able lawyer conducting cross-examination can usually avoid the injection of known inadmissible testimony by using narrow, leading questions. See Ariz.R.Evid. 611(c). Chambers did not volunteer the unwanted testimony. The broad question posed to him specifically called for the response now challenged. See State v. Fish, 109 Ariz. 219, 220, 508 P.2d 49, 50 (1973); State v. Maggard, 104 Ariz. 462, 465, 455 P.2d 259, 262 (1969). In light of Chambers' previous testimony and the question's broad nature, we find any error invited.