{"id":18568,"date":"2015-08-24T00:06:10","date_gmt":"2015-08-24T05:06:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=18568"},"modified":"2015-08-23T13:12:09","modified_gmt":"2015-08-23T18:12:09","slug":"ks-stipulating-issue-then-arguing-against-it-is-like-invited-error","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=18568","title":{"rendered":"KS: Stipulating issue then arguing against it is like invited error"},"content":{"rendered":"

The state complained the defense motion to suppress was too general, and defense counsel stipulated to narrowing it to something substantive. The state was arguing that it did not have to argue every conceivable exception to the warrant requirement for the stop of defendant and the search of his pocket incident to his arrest for an outstanding warrant. Having stipulated, the defense can\u2019t complain that proof was limited on that issue. That\u2019s essentially invited error. State v. Estrada-Vital<\/a>, 2015 Kan. LEXIS 714 (August 21, 2015):
\n<\/p>\n

Defense counsel’s stipulations in open court, when the district court was attempting to set the requisite evidentiary hearing, assured the State and the district court that the argument upon which he now relies\u2014that unlawfully obtained evidence from the vehicle led to the discovery of the drugs\u2014was not in issue. Accordingly, that assurance effectively precluded the district court from having the opportunity to receive evidence on all of the facts that would have been necessary to support the defense theory. Generally, appellate courts do not allow a defendant to invite error in the district court and complain of that error on appeal. State v. Verser, 299 Kan. 776, 784, 326 P.3d 1046 (2014); see also State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St. 3d 496, 500, 668 N.E.2d 489 (1996) (“To require the prosecution to prove the validity of every aspect of the search when there has been a stipulation to the facts and a narrowing of the issues would in effect permit a defendant to invite error.”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The state complained the defense motion to suppress was too general, and defense counsel stipulated to narrowing it to something substantive. The state was arguing that it did not have to argue every conceivable exception to the warrant requirement for … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-burden-of-proof"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18568","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18568"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18568\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18569,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18568\/revisions\/18569"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}