1. ERROR n. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 1644
    1. 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.
      1. CLEAR ERROR
        1. 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.]
        3. 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.]
        5. 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. 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.]
        1. 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.
        3. 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.]
        4. PLAIN ERROR
        5. 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.]
        6. Federal procedural rules define plain error as a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.
        7. 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.
        8. 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).
        9. 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.
        1. 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.
        3. 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.
        4. INVITED ERROR
        5. 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.]
        7. 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.]
    1. 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.”
      1. ... 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).
  3. 51.01 Requests
    1. 51.01(a) At or Before the Close of Evidence. A party may, at the close of the evidence or at an earlier reasonable time that the court directs, file and furnish to every other party written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests.
      1. MANUAL OF MODEL CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/form/courtforms/fed/cir/c8/d/ned/ned000011.pdf
      2. TRIAL PREPARATION: File and Work Flow Organization By: Lyle Griffin Warshauer http://www.warlawgroup.com/files/LGW-TrialPrep.pdf
    2. 51.01(b) After the Close of Evidence. After the close of the evidence, a party may: (1) file requests for instructions on issues that could not reasonably have been anticipated at an earlier time for requests set under Rule 51.01(a), and (2) with the court’s permission file untimely requests for instructions on any issue.
  4. 51.02 Instructions
    1. The court: 51.02(a) must inform the parties of its proposed instructions and proposed action on the requests before instructing the jury and before final jury arguments;
    2. 51.02(b) must give the parties an opportunity to object on the record and out of the jury’s hearing to the proposed instructions and actions on requests before the instructions and arguments are delivered; and
    3. 51.02(c) may instruct the jury at any time after trial begins and before the jury is discharged.
  5. 51.03 Objections
    1. 51.03(a) Form. A party who objects to an instruction or the failure to give an instruction must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.
    2. 51.03(b) Timeliness. An objection is timely if: (1) a party that has been informed of an instruction or action on a request before the jury is instructed and before final jury arguments, as provided by Rule 51.02(a), objects at the opportunity for objection required by Rule 51.02(b); or (2) a party that has not been informed of an instruction or action on a request before the time for objection provided under Rule 51.02(b) objects promptly after learning that the instruction or request will be, or has been, given or refused.
  6. 51.04 Assigning Error; Plain Error
    1. 51.04(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.
      2. assignment of error. A specification of the trial court's alleged errors on which the appellant relies in seeking an appellate court's reversal, vacation, or modification of an adverse judgment. Pl. assignments of error.See ER-ROR. Cf. WRIT OF ERROR. [Cases: Appeal and Error 718; Criminal Law 1129. C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 578; Criminal Law § 1688.]
      3. ERROR http://www.xmind.net/m/QYWP/
      4. REVIEW OF ERROR http://www.xmind.net/m/ku9q/
    2. 51.04(b) Plain Error. A court may consider a plain error in the instructions affecting substantial rights that has not been preserved as required by Rule 51.04(a)(1) or (2).
        1. 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.”).
        2. 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).
        3. 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)
        4. 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).
  7. (Amended effective January 1, 2006.) Advisory Committee Comment - 1998 Amendments
    1. The Committee does not believe a mandatory rule requiring use of written instructions in all cases is appropriate, but notes the widespread use of written instructions and the near-unanimous support for written instructions among judges, lawyers, and commentators. See, e.g., American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, Civil Trial Practice Standards, section 5(f), at 16 (1998) ("Final instructions should be provided for the jurors’ use during deliberation."). If written instructions are given, the Committee believes that the court should have the discretion to decide that more than one complete copy of the instructions be taken to the jury room when the jury retires to deliberate.
  8. Advisory Committee Comment—2006 Amendment
    1. Rule 51 is entirely new with this amendment. The new rule is modeled on its federal counterpart, Fed. R. Civ. P. 51, as it was amended in 2003. The changes are intended primarily to provide detailed procedural guidance where the existing rule is either silent or vague. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 51, Advis. Comm. Notes—2003 Amend., reprinted in FED. CIV. JUD. PROC. &RULES 227 (West 2005 ed.). Rule 51.02(c) continues to recognize that the court may give instructions to the jury at any time after trial begins, including preliminary instructions before opening statements or the taking of evidence, during the trial, and at the end of trial either before or after the arguments of counsel.
  9. THIS XMind map was authorized by China Brown, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF Lisa Stinocher O'Hanlon on April 9, 2013,
    1. How to use my ENTERTAINING study maps:
    2. 1
    3. Head over to XMind.net.
    4. 2
    5. Download and install the FREE software.
    6. 3
    7. Now you can download any XMind map you like from my XMind account to your own computer and use it to work your own case. Save the originals in a special folder so that you can start over if you mess up, or share them with a friend or loved one.
    8. 4
    9. Please share my maps as much as possible. You can find them here:
    10. For more AUTHORIZED mind maps visit: https://www.xmind.net/share/hennalady/
    11. http://pinterest.com/thehennalady/
    12. http://hennalady.minus.com/uploads
    13. http://www.scribd.com/AngryJeweler
    14. 6
    15. Please take them to your local copy center and have large versions printed. Now you can deliver them to your local child support agency, or to low income neighborhoods, pin them to your local pub bulletin board; bus stops, the break room at work, AA clubs, your local workhouse, --> wherever!
    16. Distribution copy. This document is copyright free; and is NOT FOR SALE at any cost; VOID WHERE PROHIBITED.
  10. All Minnesota Statutes are Copyright © 2012 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.