when read as a whole sufficiently state the applicable law of this case as they did in Black. For that reason, Hogan cannot show plain error. ¶ 45 Any objections Hogan had to the format of the instructions or the order in which they were presented required his objection and submission of alternative instructions. Not only did he fail to object to these particular instructions, they were given at his request. Any error that may have occurred here was error invited by Hogan. The trial court gave, almost verbatim, Hogan’s proposed instructions. Reversal cannot be based on such an error. See Lynch v. State, 1995 OK CR 65, ¶ 7, 909 P.2d 800, 802 (“[w]e will not allow [a]ppellant to invite error and then complain of the same”); Pierce v. State, 1990 OK CR 7, ¶ 10, 786 P.2d 1255, 1259-60 (<HOLDING>). B. ¶ 46 In Proposition V, Hogan argues that
holding that an appellant is not permitted to rely on invited error on appeal holding that a party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal holding a party may not invite error and then be heard to complain of that error on appeal holding that defendant may not complain of error he invited and further holding that reversal cannot be based on such error holding that invited error does not entitle the defendant to any relief and of which he will not be heard to complain on appeal