-
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.]
-
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).
-
51.01 Requests
-
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.
- MANUAL OF MODEL CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS
http://forms.lp.findlaw.com/form/courtforms/fed/cir/c8/d/ned/ned000011.pdf
- TRIAL PREPARATION:
File and Work Flow Organization
By: Lyle Griffin Warshauer
http://www.warlawgroup.com/files/LGW-TrialPrep.pdf
- 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.
-
51.02 Instructions
-
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;
- FORMAL OBJECTION
GROUNDS, BASIS
- 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
- 51.02(c) may instruct the jury at any time after trial begins and before the jury is discharged.
-
51.03 Objections
- 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.
- 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.
-
51.04 Assigning Error; Plain Error
-
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.
- ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
- 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.]
- ERROR
http://www.xmind.net/m/QYWP/
- REVIEW OF ERROR
http://www.xmind.net/m/ku9q/
-
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).
-
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).
-
(Amended effective January 1, 2006.)
Advisory Committee Comment - 1998 Amendments
- 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.
-
Advisory Committee Comment—2006 Amendment
- 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.
-
THIS XMind map was authorized by
China Brown,
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF
Lisa Stinocher O'Hanlon
on April 9, 2013,
- How to
use
my
ENTERTAINING
study
maps:
- 1
- Head over to XMind.net.
- 2
- Download and install the FREE software.
- 3
- 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.
- 4
- Please share my maps as much as possible.
You can find them here:
- For more AUTHORIZED mind maps visit:
https://www.xmind.net/share/hennalady/
- http://pinterest.com/thehennalady/
- http://hennalady.minus.com/uploads
- http://www.scribd.com/AngryJeweler
- 6
- 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!
- Distribution copy. This document is copyright free; and is NOT FOR SALE at any cost; VOID WHERE PROHIBITED.
- All Minnesota Statutes are Copyright © 2012 by the
Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.
All Rights Reserved.