Riley, J.
….
… While Hill was in jail [on domestic-battery and related charges committed against his wife Ashley in December 2013], Ashley’s mother, Lisa Conner (Conner), talked to him on two occasions. During their second conversation, Hill told Conner: “I’m in here because of my own stupidity, and I don’t blame anyone else.” [Record citations omitted throughout.] On April 22, 2014, Ashley told the prosecutor that she had lied to the police and that what she had written in her statement under oath [accusing Hill of attacking her, consistent with the responding officer’s observations at the scene] was not true.
… During [Hill’s jury] trial, the prosecutor stated that he decided not to call Ashley as a witness; however, Ashley was on the defendant’s witness list as well. The prosecutor stated that it would be a perjury for either side to call her and suggested that the trial court appoint a public defender to represent Ashley. A private attorney subsequently entered his appearance to represent Ashley. The State then made an oral motion in limine to exclude Ashley’s testimony [on grounds that if she invoked the Fifth Amendment, she would become an irrelevant witness.] …
The trial court stated that Hill could call Ashley and have her testify to matters that were not subject to the Fifth Amendment protection. The trial court further stated that if and when Ashley asserted her Fifth Amendment protection, an analysis would have to be done as to “whether or not there’s something out there that could lead to a criminal charge. . . .”
After more discussion, Hill stated that he planned to call Ashley to ask her background questions such as her name, whether she was married to him, and whether she was present at the time. Ashley’s attorney confirmed that Ashley was going to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege “every time there is any nexus between the original report and the alleged audio and changing that original report.” The trial court then reiterated that it did not want Ashley to take the stand, invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege, and create confusion. However, the trial court allowed Hill to call Ashley outside the presence of the jury, ask her questions, and “see where it’s going.”
Ashley took the stand outside the presence of the jury and testified about her address and that Hill was her husband. In response to any questions about [the day of the attack], Ashley invoked her Fifth Amendment right. Hill stated that he wanted to make a record that his opportunity to confront and cross-examine his accuser and his right to a fair trial had been compromised, but added that he would leave the matter up to the trial court. The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine to exclude Ashley’s testimony.
….
Following his jury trial, Hill was found guilty on all Counts. …
….
Hill argues … that the State intimidated Ashley into invoking her Fifth Amendment right when the State cautioned her of the danger of self-incrimination, * * * [and] that if either party puts Ashley on the stand to testify knowing that she has changed her story, the party would be suborning perjury. These statements therefore, Hill argues, “hobbled” his defense by intimidating Ashley into hiring an attorney and invoking her Fifth Amendment right.
… We first note that motions in limine do not preserve errors for appeal, the defendant must reassert his objection at trial contemporaneously with the introduction of the evidence. [Citation omitted.] Failure to object to instances of improper prosecutorial remarks during trial, similarly, results in waiver on appeal. [Citation omitted.] Because Hill failed to object to the prosecutor’s statements and the trial court’s ruling, Hill therefore waived these claimed errors on appeal.
Notwithstanding the waiver, Hill’s argument equally fails because he invited the error by putting Ashley on the stand despite the State’s and trial court’s repeated cautions. Under the doctrine of invited error, 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. [Citation omitted.] Likewise, invited error precludes relief from counsel’s strategic decisions gone awry. [Citation omitted.]
… The record reveals that Hill did not neglect to object, he purposefully did not object, stating that he would “leave it up to [the trial court],” thereby inviting the error. Hill also never objected to any of the State’s remarks raising the issue of perjury. As such, because any error that could have resulted from Hill’s failure to object was invited error, not fundamental error, Hill should not be allowed to take advantage of his conscious decision. [Citation omitted.]
….
Turning to the State’s statements quoted by Hill in his brief, we find no signs of intimidation of the witness. Our review of the record shows that the State was concerned about Ashley committing a crime and suggested that a counsel be appointed for her so that she would not commit a crime for which she could later be prosecuted. The substance of the statements was not coercive nor threatening. Ashley was offered a public defender, but she chose to hire her own attorney, who advised her to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection. [Citation omitted.]
….
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the State did not interfere with Hill’s defense by moving to exclude the testimony of a witness and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion.
Affirmed.
Najam, J. and May, J. concur
….
… While Hill was in jail [on domestic-battery and related charges committed against his wife Ashley in December 2013], Ashley’s mother, Lisa Conner (Conner), talked to him on two occasions. During their second conversation, Hill told Conner: “I’m in here because of my own stupidity, and I don’t blame anyone else.” [Record citations omitted throughout.] On April 22, 2014, Ashley told the prosecutor that she had lied to the police and that what she had written in her statement under oath [accusing Hill of attacking her, consistent with the responding officer’s observations at the scene] was not true.
… During [Hill’s jury] trial, the prosecutor stated that he decided not to call Ashley as a witness; however, Ashley was on the defendant’s witness list as well. The prosecutor stated that it would be a perjury for either side to call her and suggested that the trial court appoint a public defender to represent Ashley. A private attorney subsequently entered his appearance to represent Ashley. The State then made an oral motion in limine to exclude Ashley’s testimony [on grounds that if she invoked the Fifth Amendment, she would become an irrelevant witness.] …
The trial court stated that Hill could call Ashley and have her testify to matters that were not subject to the Fifth Amendment protection. The trial court further stated that if and when Ashley asserted her Fifth Amendment protection, an analysis would have to be done as to “whether or not there’s something out there that could lead to a criminal charge. . . .”
After more discussion, Hill stated that he planned to call Ashley to ask her background questions such as her name, whether she was married to him, and whether she was present at the time. Ashley’s attorney confirmed that Ashley was going to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege “every time there is any nexus between the original report and the alleged audio and changing that original report.” The trial court then reiterated that it did not want Ashley to take the stand, invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege, and create confusion. However, the trial court allowed Hill to call Ashley outside the presence of the jury, ask her questions, and “see where it’s going.”
Ashley took the stand outside the presence of the jury and testified about her address and that Hill was her husband. In response to any questions about [the day of the attack], Ashley invoked her Fifth Amendment right. Hill stated that he wanted to make a record that his opportunity to confront and cross-examine his accuser and his right to a fair trial had been compromised, but added that he would leave the matter up to the trial court. The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine to exclude Ashley’s testimony.
….
Following his jury trial, Hill was found guilty on all Counts. …
….
Hill argues … that the State intimidated Ashley into invoking her Fifth Amendment right when the State cautioned her of the danger of self-incrimination, * * * [and] that if either party puts Ashley on the stand to testify knowing that she has changed her story, the party would be suborning perjury. These statements therefore, Hill argues, “hobbled” his defense by intimidating Ashley into hiring an attorney and invoking her Fifth Amendment right.
… We first note that motions in limine do not preserve errors for appeal, the defendant must reassert his objection at trial contemporaneously with the introduction of the evidence. [Citation omitted.] Failure to object to instances of improper prosecutorial remarks during trial, similarly, results in waiver on appeal. [Citation omitted.] Because Hill failed to object to the prosecutor’s statements and the trial court’s ruling, Hill therefore waived these claimed errors on appeal.
Notwithstanding the waiver, Hill’s argument equally fails because he invited the error by putting Ashley on the stand despite the State’s and trial court’s repeated cautions. Under the doctrine of invited error, 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. [Citation omitted.] Likewise, invited error precludes relief from counsel’s strategic decisions gone awry. [Citation omitted.]
… The record reveals that Hill did not neglect to object, he purposefully did not object, stating that he would “leave it up to [the trial court],” thereby inviting the error. Hill also never objected to any of the State’s remarks raising the issue of perjury. As such, because any error that could have resulted from Hill’s failure to object was invited error, not fundamental error, Hill should not be allowed to take advantage of his conscious decision. [Citation omitted.]
….
Turning to the State’s statements quoted by Hill in his brief, we find no signs of intimidation of the witness. Our review of the record shows that the State was concerned about Ashley committing a crime and suggested that a counsel be appointed for her so that she would not commit a crime for which she could later be prosecuted. The substance of the statements was not coercive nor threatening. Ashley was offered a public defender, but she chose to hire her own attorney, who advised her to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection. [Citation omitted.]
….
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the State did not interfere with Hill’s defense by moving to exclude the testimony of a witness and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion.
Affirmed.
Najam, J. and May, J. concur