Utah Supreme Court
Does withdrawing an objection after the trial court's disagreement constitute invited error? State v. McNeil Explained
Summary
Roland McNeil was convicted as an accomplice to assault based largely on phone records showing calls between him and his son before and after the son’s attack on McNeil’s co-worker. The detective who testified about the phone records at the preliminary hearing had died before trial, and his testimony was read to the jury despite defense objections that it was hearsay.
Analysis
In State v. McNeil, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a crucial question about the invited error doctrine and its application when defense counsel appears to withdraw an objection following the trial court’s disagreement.
Background and Facts
Roland McNeil was convicted as an accomplice to assault based on phone records showing calls between him and his son before and after his son attacked McNeil’s co-worker. At trial, the State sought to introduce testimony from a detective who had reviewed the phone records at the preliminary hearing but had since died. Defense counsel objected on multiple grounds, including hearsay. When the trial court stated the testimony was not hearsay because it was given under oath and subject to cross-examination, counsel responded “Okay, it’s not hearsay” before raising other objections. The testimony was admitted and McNeil was convicted.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two primary issues: (1) whether defense counsel’s apparent acquiescence to the trial court’s ruling constituted invited error, precluding appellate review; and (2) whether any error in admitting the testimony was prejudicial under either plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel analysis.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court held that no invited error occurred. The court emphasized that invited error requires “a clear affirmative representation of the erroneous principle” by counsel, not mere acquiescence to the trial court’s interpretation. Here, defense counsel initially argued the testimony was hearsay and only withdrew the objection after the trial court insisted otherwise. The court distinguished between counsel independently leading the court into error versus responding to the court’s own erroneous interpretation.
However, the court found no prejudice. Even if the detective’s testimony was improperly admitted, the court concluded the phone records would have been admitted through alternative means, as the State had subpoenaed the phone company and indicated it could provide proper foundation through a company witness.
Practice Implications
This decision provides important guidance on preservation of error. Defense attorneys should continue to maintain their objections even when trial courts express strong disagreement. Mere acquiescence to a court’s erroneous ruling does not constitute invited error, allowing for potential appellate review under plain error standards. The decision also reinforces that both plain error and ineffective assistance claims require a showing that any error undermines confidence in the verdict’s outcome.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. McNeil
Citation
2016 UT 3
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20130664
Date Decided
January 6, 2016
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Defense counsel’s withdrawal of a hearsay objection in response to the trial court’s erroneous ruling does not constitute invited error, but any error was not prejudicial where the evidence would have been admitted through alternative means.
Standard of Review
Correctness for review of court of appeals application of invited error, plain error, and ineffective assistance of counsel doctrines
Practice Tip
When facing an adverse trial court ruling, continue to preserve your objection even if the court expresses disagreement; mere acquiescence to the court’s erroneous interpretation does not constitute invited error.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.