Section 23.82 Curative Admissibility and Invited Error

LibraryCriminal Practice 2012 Supp

L. (§23.82) Curative Admissibility and Invited Error

The principle of curative admissibility and invited error provides that, when improper or incomplete evidence is presented, the adversary may sometimes answer that evidence with like evidence. State v. Starr, 492 S.W.2d 795 (Mo. banc 1973). “The invited error doctrine is that a party who has introduced evidence pertaining to a particular issue may not object when the opposite party introduces related evidence intended to rebut or explain.” State v. McFall, 737 S.W.2d 748, 756 (Mo. App. S.D. 1987).

If part of the evidence is introduced by one party, the whole of that evidence, to the extent it relates to the same subject matter and concerns the specific matter opened up, may be elicited by the other party. State v. Williams, 448 S.W.2d 865, 868–69 (Mo. 1970); State v. Brandt, 467 S.W.2d 948 (Mo. 1971). “[W]here the defendant has injected an issue into the case, the State may be allowed to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence in order to explain or counteract a negative inference raised by the issue defendant injects.” State v. Lingar, 726 S.W.2d 728, 734–35 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 872 (1987). See also State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93, 103 (Mo. banc 1994), which limited Lingar to holding merely that “evidence initially inadmissible (because irrelevant) may become relevant when the opponent injects an issue.” And see State v. Debler, 856 S.W.2d 641, 649 (Mo...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT