introduced evidence about his retirement during his case-in-chief. Johnson made his retirement an issue in the case by testifying he retired because he was afraid continuing to work might be dangerous due to his prior injury and “[i]t wasn’t cause I wanted to.” Johnson also introduced into evidence a letter to Union Pacific announcing his retirement. As a preliminary matter, we note the evidence Johnson now argues was erroneously admitted was in fact first introduced into evidence by Johnson himself. See Stegner v. Mo.-Kan.-Tex. R.R. Co., 333 Mo. 1182, 64 S.W.2d 691, 694 (1933) (under the invited error doctrine, “a party may not invite and join in the commission of error and thereafter be heard to complain of it”); James v. Kan. City Gas Co., 325 Mo. 1054, 30 S.W.2d 118, 125 (1930) (<HOLDING>); State v. McFall, 737 S.W.2d 748, 756 (Mo.
holding that no exception to the invited error doctrine has ever been adopted by this circuit holding that an appellant is not permitted to rely on invited error on appeal 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 appellate review is precluded when the error is invited holding that the admission of out of court statements by a government witness when responding to an inquiry by defense counsel creates invited error 