State v Rogers

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 12-14-2016
  • Case #: A154914
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Haselton, S.J. for the Court; Oretega, P.J.; & Lagensen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A party that invites an error may not obtain a reversal on appeal based on that error.

Defendant appealed an order denying a motion for forensic testing (ORS 138.692). At the hearing, counsel for Defendant repeatedly brought forward House v. Bell to establish a legal standard to proffer “actual innocence.” House v. Bell, 547 US 518, 126 S Ct 2064, 165 L Ed 2d 1 (2006). The trial court reviewed the motion under the House standard, and subsequently denied the motion. On appeal, Defendant claimed the trial court erroneously concluded he failed to present a prima facie showing that DNA evidence would establish actual innocence. “A party that invites an error may not obtain a reversal on appeal based on that error.” State v. Cervantes, 232 Or App 567, 577-78, 223 P3d 425 (2009). Defendant’s submission and representation to the trial court invited the purported error and thus precludes review of appellate challenge.  Affirmed. 

Advanced Search