State v. Dunn

In State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) the defendant argued that "the trial court committed reversible error when it reversed its pretrial ruling and allowed questioning about his prior conviction." He argued that "if he had known that the prior conviction was going to be admissible, he would not have taken the stand or, at the very least, he would have deflected the impact of the prior conviction by disclosing it during his case-in-chief." The Court held that the defendant was precluded from raising this claim of error because of the invited error doctrine. (Id. at 1221.) In that case, defense counsel moved to exclude the evidence of the prior conviction, "providing the trial court with citations to the authority on which the court based its pretrial ruling." But "contrary to the defendant's position before the trial judge, the law at the time clearly allowed evidence of prior convictions to be admitted for impeachment purposes without any restriction." The Court concluded that "defense counsel's actions in making the motion in limine without informing the trial judge of the controlling law had led the trial court into error." The Court therefore held that the defendant was "precluded from asserting that the pretrial ruling misled him into taking the stand."