ruling has covered that and I don't view a problem with that as far as the jury is concerned." € 41 We conclude that it was not obvious that Defendant's trial was unfair because of this one question. Our decision is supported by the jury's minimal exposure to this potentially problematic line of questioning, the immediate recess and conference between the trial court and counsel to address the objection, and the length of time between the allegedly inappropriate questioning and the reconvening of the jury. In addition, Defendant's counsel did not move for a mistrial and declined a curative instruction when prompted by the court. Thus, if there was any error it may well be invited and, accordingly, provides no grounds for reversal. See Pratt v. Nelson, 2007 UT 41, ¶ 17, 164 P.3d 366 (<HOLDING>). Defendant's claim of plain error therefore
holding where challenge was waived that appellate review is precluded 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 defendant may not complain of error he invited and further holding that reversal cannot be based on such error