application of the [r]ule[ ] in the [ ] situation [Wilson]’s case presented.” Id. at 387, 122 S.Ct. 877. Wilson’s “predicament, from all that appears, was one [South Carolina] courts had not confronted before.” Id. at 382, 122 S.Ct. 877. In these circumstances, we conclude that the application of the Simmons rule to prevent Wilson from proceeding with his claim in state post-conviction relief proceedings falls within that narrow class of cases where an otherwise sound state rule proves not to be sufficiently adequate to forbid federal review. We nevertheless hold that we are barred een strictly applied in South Carolina and by this circuit, see, e.g., State v. Logan, 279 S.C. 345, 306 S.E.2d 622, 624 (1983); Wilson v. Lindler, 8 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir.1993) (en banc) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). It, therefore, constitutes an adequate and
holding invited error doctrine bars appellant from appealing the admission of evidence where appellant invited the error by being the first to introduce the evidence thus injecting the issue into tjie case holding that no exception to the invited error doctrine has ever been adopted by this circuit holding that appellate review is precluded when the error is invited holding that an appellant is not permitted to rely on invited error on appeal holding that a court will not notice error which has been invited by the party seeking to take advantage thereof on appeal