forfeiture doctrine in Minnesota

2026“When a defendant fails to object at trial” to the admission of testimony, “the forfeiture doctrine generally precludes appellate relief.” State v. Lilienthal, 889 N.W.2d 780, 784 (Minn. 2017).

2025State v. Lilienthal, 889 N.W.2d 780 , 784–85 (Minn. 2017) (“When a defendant fails to object at trial, the forfeiture doctrine generally precludes appellate relief.”).

2024The forfeiture doctrine plays a vital role in the criminal justice system because it encourages defendants to object while before the district court so that “any errors can be corrected before their full impact is realized.” State v. Beaulieu, 859 N.W.2d 275, 279 (Minn. 2015) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2024The forfeiture doctrine plays a vital role in the criminal justice system because it encourages defendants to object while before the district court so that “any errors can be corrected before their full impact is realized.” State v. Beaulieu, 859 N.W.2d 275, 279 (Minn. 2015) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2015The forfeiture doctrine reflects the “need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around.” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); accord State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 299 (Minn.2006).

2015The forfeiture doctrine reflects the “need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around.” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985); accord State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 299 (Minn. 3 We have sometimes used the phrase “waived . . . appellate review” when discussing a defendant’s failure to object to an error in the district court.

2010The Court described 804(b)(6) as a rule "which codifies the forfeiture doctrine.” Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 , (2006). .

2010The Court described 804(b)(6) as a rule "which codifies the forfeiture doctrine.” Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 , (2006). .

2023“The rationale behind applying the forfeiture doctrine is that courts must be able to preserve their ability to conduct trials.” Id. at 505 . “[A] balance must exist between a defendant’s right to counsel of his choice [and] the public interest of maintaining an efficient and effective judicial system.” Id. at 505-06 (quotation omitted). 18 Similarly, a defendant will be found to have forfeited his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him “if the state proves that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct, that he intended to procure the witness’s unavailability, and that the

2023“The rationale behind applying the forfeiture doctrine is that courts must be able to preserve their ability to conduct trials.” Id. at 505. “[A] balance must exist between a defendant’s right to counsel of his choice [and] the public interest of maintaining an efficient and effective judicial system.” Id. at 505-06 (quotation omitted). 18 Similarly, a defendant will be found to have forfeited his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him “if the state proves that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct, that he intended to procure the witness’s unavailability, and that the

2015But because “[a] rigid and undeviating judicial! ]” application of the forfeiture rule “would be out of harmony with ... the rules of fundamental justice,” state and federal rules of criminal procedure provide appellate courts “a limited power to correct errors that were forfeited because not timely raised in district court.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 731-32 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2015But because “[a] rigid and undeviating judicial! ]” application of the forfeiture rule “would be out of harmony with ... the rules of fundamental justice,” state and federal rules of criminal procedure provide appellate courts “a limited power to correct errors that were forfeited because not timely raised in district court.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 731-32 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2015The forfeiture doctrine reflects the “need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around.” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); accord State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 299 (Minn.2006).

2015The forfeiture doctrine reflects the “need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around.” United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); accord State v. Ramey, 721 N.W.2d 294, 299 (Minn.2006).

2010The Court described 804(b)(6) as a rule "which codifies the forfeiture doctrine." Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 , (2006). [5] See, e.g., Wright II, 726 N.W.2d at 475-76 ; State v. Fields, 679 N.W.2d 341, 347 (Minn. 2004); State v. Byers, 570 N.W.2d 487, 494-95 (Minn. 1997); State v. Peirce, 364 N.W.2d 801, 807-08 (Minn. 1985); State v. Hansen, 312 N.W.2d 96, 103-105 (1981), abrogation on other grounds recognized by State v. Bobadilla, 709 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Minn.2006); State v. Olson, 291 N.W.2d 203, 206-07 (Minn. 1980); State v. Black, 291 N.W.2d 208,

2008See State v. Peirce, 364 N.W.2d 801, 807-08 (Minn. 1985). [30] The court asserts that the Supreme Court, despite taking the time in Davis to discuss the analytical underpinnings of the forfeiture doctrine, "was `tak[ing] no position on the standards necessary to demonstrate * * * forfeiture.' " To reach this conclusion, the court reads an isolated phrase out of the context in which it was found.

2010The Court described 804(b)(6) as a rule "which codifies the forfeiture doctrine." Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 , (2006). [5] See, e.g., Wright II, 726 N.W.2d at 475-76 ; State v. Fields, 679 N.W.2d 341, 347 (Minn. 2004); State v. Byers, 570 N.W.2d 487, 494-95 (Minn. 1997); State v. Peirce, 364 N.W.2d 801, 807-08 (Minn. 1985); State v. Hansen, 312 N.W.2d 96, 103-105 (1981), abrogation on other grounds recognized by State v. Bobadilla, 709 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Minn.2006); State v. Olson, 291 N.W.2d 203, 206-07 (Minn. 1980); State v. Black, 291 N.W.2d 208,

2008To the contrary, State v. Black, cited by the concurrence, supports the applicability of the forfeiture doctrine to any situation where defendant’s "wrongdoing” causes the witness to be unavailable. 291 N.W.2d 208, 214 (Minn.1980) ("The law is clear that if a witness is unavailable because of the wrongdoing of the defendant, the defendant cannot complain if other competent evidence is introduced to take the place of the witness’[s] testimony.”).

2024“Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.02, however, creates an exception to the forfeiture doctrine that allows an appellate court to consider a forfeited error when the defendant establishes (1) an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Webster, 894 N.W.2d 782, 786 (Minn. 2017) 11 (citing Lilienthal, 889 N.W.2d at 785 ).

2024“Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 31.02, however, creates an exception to the forfeiture doctrine that allows an appellate court to consider a forfeited error when the defendant establishes (1) an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Webster, 894 N.W.2d 782, 786 (Minn. 2017) 11 (citing Lilienthal, 889 N.W.2d at 785 ).

2010See 128 S.Ct. at 2680 ("Here, the state courts did not consider Giles' intent, which they found irrelevant under their interpretation of the forfeiture doctrine.

2010See 128 S.Ct. at 2680 (“Here, the state courts did not consider Giles’ intent, which they found irrelevant under their interpretation of the forfeiture doctrine.

2010The Court described 804(b)(6) as a rule "which codifies the forfeiture doctrine." Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 , (2006). [5] See, e.g., Wright II, 726 N.W.2d at 475-76 ; State v. Fields, 679 N.W.2d 341, 347 (Minn. 2004); State v. Byers, 570 N.W.2d 487, 494-95 (Minn. 1997); State v. Peirce, 364 N.W.2d 801, 807-08 (Minn. 1985); State v. Hansen, 312 N.W.2d 96, 103-105 (1981), abrogation on other grounds recognized by State v. Bobadilla, 709 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Minn.2006); State v. Olson, 291 N.W.2d 203, 206-07 (Minn. 1980); State v. Black, 291 N.W.2d 208,

2010See, e.g., Wright II, 726 N.W.2d at 475-76 ; State v. Fields, 679 N.W.2d 341, 347 (Minn. 2004); State v. Byers, 570 N.W.2d 487, 494-95 (Minn.1997); State v. Peirce, 364 N.W.2d 801, 807-08 (Minn.1985); State v. Hansen, 312 N.W.2d 96, 103-105 (1981), abrogation on other grounds recognized by State v. Bobadilla, 709 N.W.2d 243, 248 (Minn.2006); State v. Olson, 291 N.W.2d 203, 206-07 (Minn.1980); State v. Black, 291 N.W.2d 208, 213-14 (Minn.1980), abrogation on other grounds recognized by State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903, 909 (Minn.1996).

2026Further, even if the statutory interpretation argument had been forfeited, we can still consider an argument raised for the first time on appeal “when the interests of justice require consideration of such issues and doing so would not unfairly surprise a party to the appeal.” See Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996); see also Minn. R.

2026But we may correct an error not objected to at trial if the 22 defendant shows that there was “(1) error; (2) that was plain; and (3) that affected [the defendant’s] substantial rights” such that it “depriv[ed] the defendant of a fair trial.” Id. at 785 ; State v. Tscheu, 758 N.W.2d 849, 863 (Minn. 2008) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023“The rationale behind applying the forfeiture doctrine is that courts must be able to preserve their ability to conduct trials.” Id. at 505. “[A] balance must exist between a defendant’s right to counsel of his choice [and] the public interest of maintaining an efficient and effective judicial system.” Id. at 505-06 (quotation omitted). 18 Similarly, a defendant will be found to have forfeited his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him “if the state proves that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct, that he intended to procure the witness’s unavailability, and that the

2023“The rationale behind applying the forfeiture doctrine is that courts must be able to preserve their ability to conduct trials.” Id. at 505. “[A] balance must exist between a defendant’s right to counsel of his choice [and] the public interest of maintaining an efficient and effective judicial system.” Id. at 505-06 (quotation omitted). 18 Similarly, a defendant will be found to have forfeited his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him “if the state proves that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct, that he intended to procure the witness’s unavailability, and that the

2019See, e.g. , Rairdon v. State , 557 N.W.2d 318 , 323 n.5 (Minn. 1996).

2019See State v. Kelley , 855 N.W.2d 269 , 277 (Minn. 2014) ("[T]he purpose of the plain-error doctrine [is] to provide a fairness-based exception to the forfeiture doctrine.").

2017BOB Acres, LLC v. Schumacher Farms, LLC, 797 N.W.2d 723, 728-29 (Minn.App. 2011), review granted (Minn. June 14, 2011) and appeal dismissed (Minn. Aug. 12, 2011).

2015See, e.g., Montanaro v. State, 802 N.W.2d 726, 732 (Minn. 2011).

2015Put differently, the forfeiture doctrine “encourages defendants to object while in the [district] court so that any errors can be corrected before their full impact is realized.” State v. Pearson, 775 N.W.2d 155, 161 (Minn.2009).

2015Put differently, the forfeiture doctrine “encourages defendants to object while in the [district] court so that any errors can be corrected before their full impact is realized.” State v. Pearson, 775 N.W.2d 155, 161 (Minn. 2009).

2015See id. at 442 .

2015See id. at 442 .

2014Under the forfeiture doctrine, “ ‘a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ” Olano, 507 U.S. at 731 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 (quoting Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944)); see also State v. Williams, 794 N.W.2d 867, 874 (Minn.2011) (explaining that “[w]e ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions of criminal

2014Under the forfeiture doctrine, “ ‘a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ” Olano, 507 U.S. at 731 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 (quoting Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944)); see also State v. Williams, 794 N.W.2d 867, 874 (Minn.2011) (explaining that “[w]e ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions of criminal

2014Under the forfeiture doctrine, “ ‘a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ” Olano, 507 U.S. at 731 (quoting Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944)); see also State v. Williams, 794 N.W.2d 867, 874 (Minn. 2011) (explaining that “[w]e ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions of criminal procedure or are challenges to the constituti

2014Under the forfeiture doctrine, “ ‘a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ” Olano, 507 U.S. at 731 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 (quoting Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944)); see also State v. Williams, 794 N.W.2d 867, 874 (Minn.2011) (explaining that “[w]e ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions of criminal