-
PLAIN
ERROR
REVIEW
-
Federal courts apply Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b)
“Plain Error. A plain error that affects substantial rights may be
considered even though it was not brought to the court's attention.”).
-
Under plain error review, if a prosecutor commits an error at trial
and the defendant does not object to it, the defendant later may
ask the appellate court to order a new trial, but the court will do
so only if the error was plain, the error affected the defendant’s
substantial rights.
See Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 300 (describing the test for reviewing
unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct).
See also State v. Powers, 654 N.W.2d 667, 678 (Minn. 2003)
(identifying, based on the seriousness of the prosecutorial
misconduct, two distinct standards for reviewing whether the
defendant’s right to a fair trial was impaired);
State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408, 420 (Minn. 1980)
(observing that reversal is warranted only where misconduct
“viewed in the light of the whole record, appears to be
inexcusable and so serious and prejudicial” that the
defendant was denied the right to a fair trial).
-
This is a standard with a high threshold of persuasion:
the trial error must have been so clear under
applicable law at the time of conviction, and so
prejudicial to the defendant’s right to a fair trial,
that the defendant’s failure to object-and thereby
present the trial court with an opportunity to
avoid prejudice-should not forfeit his right to a remedy.
Rairdon v. State, 557 N.W.2d 318, 323 (Minn. 1996)
- See, e.g., State v. Parker, 353 N.W.2d 122, 128 (Minn. 1984)
(defendant’s “failure to object to the prosecutor's
statements implies that the comments were not prejudicial.”).
8 State v. Blanche, 696 N.W.2d 351, 375 (Minn. 2005)
(citing State v. Sanders, 598 N.W.2d 650, 656 (Minn. 1999));
see also MINN. R. EVID. 103(d) (stating that, without a proper
objection, the court may take notice of only “errors in
fundamental law or of plain errors affecting substantial rights . .”).
Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 297-98.
See also State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511, 518 (Minn. 1999).
-
MINNESOTA RULES
CIVIL PROCEDURE
61 - HARMLESS ERROR
- No error in either the admission or the exclusion of
evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order
or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any
of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for
setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying, or
otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless
refusal to take such action appears to the court
inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at
every stage of the proceeding must disregard any
error or defect in the proceeding which does not
affect the substantial rights of the parties.
- SHIFTING
BURDEN OF
PROOF
-
COURT SHALL
AVOID EVEN THE
APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY
-
i.e. the right to a fair trial.
See Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 300.
The court uses the phrase “the defendant’s substantial rights”
but explains the meaning of that concept by stating that
“[t]he overarching concern is that [prosecutorial] misconduct
may deny the defendant’s right to a fair trial.”
- ... and the court determines that
“it should address the error to ensure
fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
citing State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d at 736, 740 (Minn. 1998).
The court normally described the plain error test as having “three prongs,”
in that “there must be
(1) error;
(2) that is plain; and
(3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
To date, the court has not explained whether the plain error test is better
characterized as a four-prong test, with the fourth prong being a
requirement that the appellate court must find a reason to “address the
error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
See id; see also State v. Dobbins, 725 N.W.2d 492, 508 (Minn. 2006).
If the three prongs of the plain error test are met, we will
“then assess whether [we] should address the error to ensure
fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.”
We will correct the error only if the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of the judicial proceedings is seriously affected.”
citing State v. Morton, 701 N.W.2d 225, 234 (Minn. 2005).
-
MINNESOTA RULES
CIVIL PROCEDURE
51
- 51.04 Assigning Error; Plain Error
(a) Assigned Error. A party may assign as error:
(1) an error in an instruction actually given if that
party made a proper objection under Rule 51.03, or
(2) a failure to give an instruction if that party made a
proper request under Rule 51.01, and—unless the
court made a definitive ruling on the record rejecting
the request—also made a proper objection under Rule 51.03.
(b) Plain Error. A court may consider a plain error in the instructions
affecting substantial rights that has not been preserved as require
by Rule 51.04(a)(1) or (2).
-
Only error affecting substantial rights
is actionable.
-
MINNESOTA RULES
OF EVIDENCE
Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence
-
(a) Effect of erroneous ruling.
Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits
or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party
is affected, and
(1) Objection.
In case the ruling is one admitting evidence a timely objection or
motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of
objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or
(2) Offer of proof.
In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the
evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent
from the context within which questions were asked.
Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting
or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not
renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error.
-
(b) Record of offer and ruling.
The court may add any other or further statement which shows
the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered,
the objection made, and the ruling thereon. Upon request of any
party, the court shall place its ruling on the record. The court may
direct the making of an offer in question and answer form.
- (c) Hearing of jury.
In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable,
so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury
by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking
questions in the hearing of the jury.
- (d) Error.
Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of errors in fundamental
law or of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were
not brought to the attention of the court.
-
MINNESOTA RULES
CIVIL PROCEDURE
50
- 50.03 Granting Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; Conditional Rulings; New Trial Motion
(a) Conditional Rulings.
If the motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted, the court
shall also rule on the motion for a new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be
granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall specify the grounds
for granting or denying the motion for the new trial. If the motion for a new trial is thus
conditionally granted, the order thereon does not affect the finality of the judgment. In
case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally granted and the judgment is
reversed on appeal, the new trial shall proceed unless the appellate court has otherwise
ordered. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally denied, the respondent
on appeal may assert error in that denial; and if the judgment is reversed on appeal,
subsequent proceedings shall be in accordance with the order of the appellate court.
(b) Timing.
Any motion for a new trial under Rule 59 by a party against whom judgment as a matter of
law is rendered shall be served and heard within the times specified in Rule 59 for the service
and hearing of a motion for a new trial.
-
MINNEOSTA RULES
GENERAL PRACTICE
2.02 ROLE OF JUDGES
- (d) Intervention.
The judge should generally refrain from intervening
in the examination of witnesses or argument of counsel;
however, the court shall intervene upon its own initiative
to prevent a miscarriage of justice or obvious error of law.
-
MINNEOSTA RULES
GENERAL PRACTICE
2.03 ROLE OF ATTORNEYS
-
(a) Officer of Court.
The lawyer is an officer of the court and should at all times
uphold the honor and maintain the dignity of the profession,
maintaining at all times a respectful attitude toward the court.
- See Rule 1.02. It is not intended that the failure to follow these rules,
in itself, would be the subject of claimed error in the conduct of the trial
court proceedings in the absence of aggravating circumstances, such as
repeated violations or persistent violation after objections by a party or
direction from the court.
-
!
- ...NOW WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND THAT...
- Map made by Lisa Stinocher O'Hanlon
using XMind software.
03.05.2013
http://www.xmind.net/share/hennalady/
-
ERROR n.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 1644
-
error n.
1. An assertion or belief that does not conform
to objective reality; a belief that what is false is
true or that what is true is false; MISTAKE.
-
CLEAR ERROR
-
clear error.
A trial judge's decision or action that
appears to a reviewing court to have been
unquestionably erroneous.
Even though a clear error occurred,
it may not warrant reversal.
[Cases: Appeal and Error 999(1), 1008.1(5).
C.J.S. Appeal and Error §§ 784, 805, 810.]
- CLERICAL ERROR
- clerical error.
An error resulting from a minor mistake
or inadvertence, esp. in writing or copying
something on the record, and not from
judicial reasoning or determination.
Among the boundless examples of clerical
errors are omitting an appendix from a
document; typing an incorrect number;
mistranscribing a word; and failing to
log a call. A court can correct a clerical
error at any time, even after judgment has
been entered.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a); Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
— Also termed scrivener's error; vitium clerici.
See VITIUM SCRIPTORIS. [Cases: Federal
Civil Procedure 2653; Judgment 306.
C.J.S. Judgments §§ 280–281.]
- CUMULATIVE ERROR
- cumulative error.
The prejudicial effect of two or
more trial errors that may have been
harmless individually.
The cumulative effect of multiple
harmless errors may amount to reversible error.
See CUMULATIVE-ERROR ANALYSIS
See REISSUABLE ERROR.
-
2. A mistake of law or of fact in a tribunal's
judgment, opinion, or order.
[Cases: Federal Civil Procedure 2653;
Judgment 355–356. C.J.S. Judgments §§ 314–315.]
-
SUBSTANTIAL ERROR
-
substantial error.
An error that affects a party's substantive
rights or the outcome of the case.
A substantial error may require reversal on
appeal.
Cf. harmless error. technical error.
See harmless error.
- REVERSIBLE ERROR
- reversible error.
An error that affects a party's substantive
rights or the case's outcome, and thus is
grounds for reversal if the party properly
objected. — Also termed harmful error;
prejudicial error; fatal error.
[Cases: Administrative Law and Procedure 764;
Appeal and Error 1025–1074; Criminal Law 1162.
C.J.S. Appeal and Error §§ 825–830;
Criminal Law §§ 1713–1715; Juries §§ 421–422;
Justices of the Peace § 240;
Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 225.]
- PLAIN ERROR
- plain error.
An error that is so obvious and
prejudicial that an appellate court
should address it despite the parties'
failure to raise a proper objection.
A plain error is often said to be so
obvious and substantial that failure to
correct it would infringe a party's
due-process rights and damage the
integrity of the judicial process.
See Fed. R. Evid. 103(d). —
Also termed fundamental error;
error apparent of record.
[Cases: Appeal and Error 181;
Criminal Law 1030.
C.J.S. Appeal and Error §§ 202, 207;
Criminal Law § 1682.]
- Federal procedural rules define plain error as a highly
prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.
- Plain error is an error declared by an appellate court to be
patently obvious in a lower court decision or action and
causes a reversal. When a defendant raises an issue on
appeal that was not raised before the judge, the court
of appeals may review for plain error.
- To be plain error:
(1) there must be an error;
(2) the error must be plain (clear or obvious); and
(3) the error must materially prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant).
- The appellant has the burden to show plain error,
which is error that is clear or obvious and that
materially prejudices the substantial rights of
appellant; once appellant has met his burden
of persuasion, the burden shifts to the
government to show that the error was not
prejudicial.
- ERRORS INCLUDING EVIDENCE
- ERRORS EXCLUDING EVIDENCE
-
MANIFEST ERROR
-
manifest error.
An error that is plain and indisputable,
and that amounts to a complete
disregard of the controlling law or the
credible evidence in the record.
[Cases: Appeal and Error 999(1), 1008.1(7).
C.J.S. Appeal and Error §§ 784, 805, 810.]
See OBVIOUS ERROR.
- MANIFEST CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR
- manifest constitutional error.
An error by the trial court that has an
identifiably negative impact on the trial
to such a degree that the constitutional
rights of a party are compromised.
A manifest constitutional error can be
reviewed by a court of appeals even if the
appellant did not object at trial.
- INVITED ERROR
- invited error.
An error that a party cannot complain
of on appeal because the party, through
conduct, encouraged or prompted the trial
court to make the erroneous ruling.
[Cases: Administrative Law and Procedure 742;
Appeal and Error 882;
Criminal Law 1137.
C.J.S. Appeal and Error §§ 745–747;
Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 214.]
- HARMLESS ERROR
- harmless errors
See ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR.
A harmless error is not grounds for reversal.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; Fed. R. Crim. P. 52. —
Also termed technical error; error in vacuo.
Cf. substantial error.
[Cases: Administrative Law and Procedure 764;
Appeal and Error 1025–1074.
C.J.S. Appeal and Error §§ 825–830;
Juries §§ 421–422;
Justices of the Peace § 240;
Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 225.]