Facts of Case
The jury unanimously agreed that the defendant, Jerome Larnedo Henderson, was guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree as charged by the King County Prosecuting Attorney. The evidence against him was substantial. An independent eyewitness saw the defendant trying to break into a neighbor's house. Seattle *868police officers promptly responding to a call from the eyewitness observed the defendant in the act and apprehended him as he attempted to flee. The defendant also made incriminating statements at the time of his capture. The experienced trial court allowed the conviction to stand as did the Court of Appeals in a unanimous reported opinion.1 We also affirm but do so on a different basis than did the Court of Appeals.
One issue is dispositive of this case.
Issue
Can the defendant in a criminal trial (as here) request that instructions be given to the jury (as here) and then, after the requested instructions have been given to the jury by the trial court (as here), complain on appeal that the instructions given were constitutionally infirm (as the defendant does here)?
Decision
Conclusion. We answer the question posed by this issue in the negative. The law of this state is well settled that a defendant will not be allowed to request an instruction or instructions at trial, and then later, on appeal, seek reversal on the basis of claimed error in the instruction or instructions given at the defendant's request. To hold otherwise would put a premium on defendants misleading trial courts; this we decline to encourage.
At trial, the defendant proposed, and the trial court gave, instructions defining the charge of attempted burglary in the second degree in the language recommended by the Washington Practice Instructions — Criminal (WPIC).2 The *869defendant also proposed, and the trial court gave, pattern WPIC instructions for the two offenses the defendant claimed were "lesser included offenses", namely, criminal trespass in the first degree3 and criminal trespass in the second degree.4
The defendant was convicted of attempted burglary in the second degree as charged and sentenced thereon.
On appeal, the defendant claims that the instructions were erroneous, arguing as follows:
In State v. Johnson, [100 Wn.2d 607, 674 P.2d 145 (1983)], the Washington Supreme Court held that "it is error for the trial court in a burglary prosecution to fail in its instructions to specify and define the crime or crimes allegedly intended." Johnson, supra at 625. That holding, issued in December 1983, was the controlling law in the State of Washington until it was overruled by State v. Bergeron, 105 Wn.2d 1, 711 P.2d 1000 (1985), issued in December 1985.
Here, then, the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury under the controlling case law. Henderson's acts occurred in September 1985, after the Johnson decision and before Ber-geron was decided. The rule in Johnson, therefore, applies to his case, and under Johnson this instructional error violated Henderson's due process right to have the jury instructed on the definition of every element of the offense charged.3 Johnson, supra at 623-628; State v. Emmanuel, 42 Wn.2d 799, 821, 259 P.2d 845 (1953).
Brief of Appellant, at 4-5.
The defendant concedes that this issue was not raised in the trial court. As he notes in footnote 3, referred to in the portion of his brief just quoted:
Although this issue was not raised in the trial court, RAP 2.5(A) allows constitutional error to be raised for the first time on appeal.
*870(Italics ours.) Brief of Appellant, at 5 n.3 (part). This argument misses the point, however, which is that even if error was committed, of whatever kind, it was at the defendant's invitation and he is therefore precluded from claiming on appeal that it is reversible error.
The law in this regard was clearly declared in State v. Boyer, 91 Wn.2d 342, 588 P.2d 1151 (1979), a unanimous decision of this court:
This court, in State v. Kroll, 87 Wn.2d 829, 558 P.2d 173 (1976), and succeeding cases, has recognized the constitutional requirement that the prosecution bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime charged. It is against this constitutional test that a challenged instruction may be measured. In this case, however, we do not reach the constitutional issue.
The instruction given is one which the defendant himself proposed. A party may not request an instruction and later complain on appeal that the requested instruction was given. Ball v. Smith, 87 Wn.2d 717, 556 P.2d 936 (1976); Vangemert v. McCalmon, 68 Wn.2d 618, 414 P.2d 617 (1966). The defendant's challenge to the instruction must therefore fail.
The judgment is affirmed.
(Italics ours.) Boyer, 91 Wn.2d at 344-45.
Boyer is the established law of this state. As in the present case, constitutional error was there claimed but review was denied on the basis of invited error. Boyer has been regularly followed both by this court and by our Court of Appeals, as the following illustrative excerpts demonstrate:
A party cannot request an instruction and later complain on appeal that the instruction should not have been given.18
(Footnoting Boyer, at 345.) State v. Kincaid., 103 Wn.2d 304, 314, 692 P.2d 823 (1985).
Moreover, we note that the same result is required by the doctrine of invited error. See generally State v. Boyer, 91 Wn.2d 342, 588 P.2d 1151 (1979). That doctrine prohibits a party from setting up an error at trial and then complaining of it on appeal. State v. Boyer, supra. The present case does exactly that.
State v. Pam, 101 Wn.2d 507, 511, 680 P.2d 762 (1984).
*871Under these circumstances, we hold that: ... (2) any error in connection therewith was invited error and cannot be complained of on appeal;117
(Footnoting Pam, at 511.) State v. Mak, 105 Wn.2d 692, 748, 718 P.2d 407, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 995, 93 L. Ed. 2d 599, 107 S. Ct. 599 (1986).
Even where constitutional issues are involved, invited error precludes judicial review. State v. Boyer, 91 Wn.2d 342, 345, 588 P.2d 1151 (1979).
State v. Tyson, 33 Wn. App. 859, 864, 658 P.2d 55, review denied, 99 Wn.2d 1023 (1983).
Even where constitutional rights are involved, invited error precludes appellate review.
State v. Alger, 31 Wn. App. 244, 249, 640 P.2d 44, review denied, 97 Wn.2d 1018 (1982).
Affirmed.
Callow, C.J., and Brachtenbach, Dore, and Durham, JJ., concur.
State v. Henderson, 50 Wn. App. 158, 747 P.2d 504 (1987), review granted, 110 Wn.2d 1027 (1988).
The attempted burglary in the second degree instructions are the trial court's instruction 4 (the crime of attempt defined, WPIC 100.01); instruction 5 (elements of the crime, WPIC 100.02); instruction 6 (the crime of bhrglary in the second degree defined, WPIC 60.03); instruction 7 (intent defined, WPIC 10.01); and instruction 7A (substantial step defined, WPIC 100.05 (Supp. 1986)).
The criminal trespass in the first degree instructions are the trial court's instruction 11 (the crime of attempt defined, WPIC 100.01); instruction 12 (elements of the crime, WPIC 100.02); and instruction 13 (the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree defined, WPIC 60.15).
The criminal trespass in the second degree instructions are the trial court's instruction 14 (the crime of attempt defined, WPIC 100.01) and instruction 15 (elements of the crime, WPIC 100.02; combined with the definition of the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree, WPIC 60.17).