DICKSON, J.
The defendant . . . asserts that the trial court’s sexually violent predator determination was made without receiving testimony, and without any showing that the persons performing the evaluation had expertise in criminal behavioral disorders, contrary to the statutory requirements. We note that the statute specifies that the court appointed psychologists or psychiatrists “have expertise in criminal behavioral disorders” and that they “testify at the hearing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7.5(e). It also requires that the court’s determination occur after “considering the testimony” of the psychologists or psychiatrists. Id. In this case, there was no such testimony, and there is slight evidence in the record to show that Doctors Mueller and Krause have specific expertise in criminal behavioral disorders.
At the hearing, however, defense counsel’s actions avoided any amplification of the doctors’ summary reports by not insisting on their direct testimony. Rather, the defense expressly urged the trial court that “[a]s far as the determination of the sexual [sic] violent predator, I think the Court has to make that determination based upon the charge that he’s been convicted and the doctors’ reports, and I would leave that up to the Court.” Tr. at 429–30.
A defendant may not request a trial court to take an action and later claim on appeal that such action is erroneous. Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907 (Ind. 2005). Under the invited error doctrine, “a party may not take advantage of an error that she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or misconduct.” Id. (quoting Witte v. Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128, 133 (Ind. 2005)). The invited error doctrine applies here to preclude consideration of the defendant’s appellate claims based on the absence of the doctors’ live testimony at the hearing and the alleged insufficient expertise in criminal behavioral disorders.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, JJ., concur.
RUCKER, J., concurs with separate opinion in which Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, J., join:
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to express my view that but for invited error, Baugh would be entitled to relief. I read Indiana Code section 35-38-1-7.5(e) as mandating a hearing at which the two court appointed experts “testify”; and that the trial court’s sexually violent predator determination must be based on a consideration of the experts’ “testimony.”