People v. Gross, 287 P.3d 105

Defendant Charles Gross, while camping on a double campsite with the Madrid family, fired four shots at their vehicle after a dispute about campsite cleanup, killing Mrs. Madrid and injuring Mr. Madrid.
Gross testified that the Madrids initiated hostility, he feared for his life after seeing what he believed to be a weapon, and the vehicle rolled toward him as he walked away.
At trial, the court instructed on first-degree extreme indifference murder, attempted extreme indifference murder, second-degree assault, and lesser-included offenses, and also gave self-defense and initial aggressor instructions over defense counsel’s objection.
Closing arguments included the prosecutor asserting Gross did not withdraw from the encounter, citing duty-to-retreat aspects of the initial aggressor instruction.
Gross was convicted on several counts including three extreme indifference murder charges and two second-degree offenses; the court of appeals reversed, finding cumulative error tied to the initial aggressor instruction, related closing argument, and failure to allow self-defense consideration for extreme indifference murder.
This Court granted certiorari and now reverses the court of appeals, holding that invited-error precludes plain-error review of defense-tendered instructions, while addressing the self-defense issue for extreme indifference murder as not amounting to plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether invited error precludes plain-error review	Gross; Stewart allows plain-error review for incompetence, despite invited error.	Gross; invited-error doctrine bars review of defense-tendered instruction.	Invited-error precludes plain-error review; no plain-error review of defense-tendered instruction.
Whether the trial court erred by omitting self-defense for extreme indifference murder	Evidence supports self-defense; instruction should have been given.	Omission was not plain error and defense strategy matters.	The trial court should have provided the self-defense instruction for extreme indifference murder, but omission did not constitute plain error.
Whether prosecutor's comments on duty to retreat were reviewable	Prosecutor’s duty-to-retreat remarks amplified instructional error.	Comments were within permissible commentary on an asserted instruction.	We do not review prosecutor's comments because they stem from the defense-tendered instruction.

People v. Stewart, 55 P.3d 107 (Colo. 2002) (invited-error doctrine does not preclude plain-error review for inadvertent attorney incompetence)
People v. Zapata, 779 P.2d 1307 (Colo. 1989) (invited error doctrine generally precludes appellate review)
Gray v. People, 342 P.2d 627 (Colo. 1959) (cannot review defense-demanded instructions as error)
Riley v. People, 266 P.3d 1089 (Colo. 2011) (self-defense as element-negating traverse; different burdens for defenses vs traverses)
Candelaria v. People, 148 P.3d 178 (Colo. 2006) (legal framework for self-defense and traverses in Colorado)
People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553 (Colo. 2011) (differences between affirmative defenses and elemental traverses)