206 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2026 68 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pedersongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Pederson, 2024 ND 79, ¶ 17 , 6 N.W.3d 619 (a defendant in a criminal jury trial must move for a judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 to preserve the issue of sufficiency of the evidence for appeal). [¶3] “An exception to the requirement of a motion for judgment of acquittal is if the trial court committed obvious error.” Pederson, 2024 ND 79, ¶ 18 (cleaned up). 2024See State v. Pederson, 2024 ND 79, ¶ 17 , 6 N.W.3d 619 (a defendant in a criminal jury trial must move for a judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 to preserve the issue of sufficiency of the evidence for appeal). [¶3] “An exception to the requirement of a motion for judgment of acquittal is if the trial court committed obvious error.” Pederson, 2024 ND 79, ¶ 18 (cleaned up). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Olandergreen2 sentences2024He requests we review the instruction for obvious error. [¶7] “Obvious error review consists of determining whether (1) there was an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected a party’s substantial rights.” State v. Gaddie, 2022 ND 44, ¶ 4 , 971 N.W.2d 811 ; see also State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 14 , 575 N.W.2d 658 . 2024He requests we review the instruction for obvious error. [¶7] “Obvious error review consists of determining whether (1) there was an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected a party’s substantial rights.” State v. Gaddie, 2022 ND 44, ¶ 4 , 971 N.W.2d 811 ; see also State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 14 , 575 N.W.2d 658 . | 3 | 14 |
State v. Dahlgreen2 sentences2025“However, it does not foreclose the exercise of our discretion to review forfeited errors under the obvious error standard as provided by N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” Adams, ¶ 25; see also State v. Dahl, 2022 ND 212, ¶¶ 9, 11 , 982 N.W.2d 580 (explaining the statement—“if a motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial on specified grounds and those grounds did not include the claim on appeal, the defendant does not preserve that issue for review”—“should not be read to foreclose exercise of our discretion to review forfeited errors under the obvious error standard”). [¶6] “Obvious error review 2025“However, it does not foreclose the exercise of our discretion to review forfeited errors under the obvious error standard as provided by N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” Adams, ¶ 25; see also State v. Dahl, 2022 ND 212, ¶¶ 9, 11 , 982 N.W.2d 580 (explaining the statement—“if a motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial on specified grounds and those grounds did not include the claim on appeal, the defendant does not preserve that issue for review”—“should not be read to foreclose exercise of our discretion to review forfeited errors under the obvious error standard”). [¶6] “Obvious error review | 3 | 7 |
| State v. Murphygreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Demerygreen | 3 | 3 |
State v. Rourkegreen2 sentences2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). 2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). | 2 | 11 |
State v. Tresenritergreen2 sentences2025“Rule 52(b) provides a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal, and we exercise the power to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Eckroth, 2015 ND 40, ¶ 19 , 858 N.W.2d 908 (quoting State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶ 12 , 823 N.W.2d 774 ). “[T]he defendant has the burden to demonstrate a plain error which affected his substantial rights.” Id. [¶13] “The district court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing.” State v. Blue, 20 2013State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶ 16 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (failing to find obvious error when no North Dakota statute or case law was cited that clearly required consolidation of offenses under these circumstances) (citations omitted). [¶ 74] In State v. Lee, this Court also failed to find obvious error, holding that “the error, if it was error, alleged by Lee was not an obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b), because it was not in conflict with applicable legal rule under current law.” State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶ 17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (finding no obvious error in admitting a 911 tape when the | 2 | 7 |
State v. Docktergreen2 sentences2025See State v. Dockter, 2019 ND 203, ¶¶ 8-9 , 932 N.W.2d 98 . 2025See State v. Dockter, 2019 ND 203, ¶¶ 8-9 , 932 N.W.2d 98 . | 2 | 7 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2024As in Haverluk, we have the discretion to correct this obvious error, and we should correct it because it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding. 432 N.W.2d at 874-75 ; see State v. Clark, 2004 ND 85, ¶ 6 , 678 N.W.2d 765 . [¶27] Therefore, we reverse and remand this case for imposition of a sentence consistent with the facts proven. 2024As in Haverluk, we have the discretion to correct this obvious error, and we should correct it because it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceeding. 432 N.W.2d at 874-75 ; see State v. Clark, 2004 ND 85, ¶ 6 , 678 N.W.2d 765 . [¶27] Therefore, we reverse and remand this case for imposition of a sentence consistent with the facts proven. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2020“A defendant has the burden to show an obvious error that affects his substantial rights, and we are not required to exercise our discretion to notice obvious error when the defendant has not raised an issue about obvious error.” State v. Smith, 2019 ND 239, ¶ 15 , 934 N.W.2d 1 . [¶6] Edwards did not brief his claim as obvious error. 2020“A defendant has the burden to show an obvious error that affects his substantial rights, and we are not required to exercise our discretion to notice obvious error when the defendant has not raised an issue about obvious error.” State v. Smith, 2019 ND 239, ¶ 15 , 934 N.W.2d 1 . [¶6] Edwards did not brief his claim as obvious error. | 2 | 6 |
| State v. Hansfordgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Landrusgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Whitmangreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Jandagreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Martinezgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Haverlukgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Pottergreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Atkinsongreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Thillgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Kensmoegreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. McDonellgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tresenritergreen2 sentences2025“Rule 52(b) provides a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal, and we exercise the power to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Eckroth, 2015 ND 40, ¶ 19 , 858 N.W.2d 908 (quoting State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶ 12 , 823 N.W.2d 774 ). “[T]he defendant has the burden to demonstrate a plain error which affected his substantial rights.” Id. [¶13] “The district court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing.” State v. Blue, 20 2013State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶ 16 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (failing to find obvious error when no North Dakota statute or case law was cited that clearly required consolidation of offenses under these circumstances) (citations omitted). [¶ 74] In State v. Lee, this Court also failed to find obvious error, holding that “the error, if it was error, alleged by Lee was not an obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b), because it was not in conflict with applicable legal rule under current law.” State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶ 17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (finding no obvious error in admitting a 911 tape when the | 1 | 6 |
State v. Gaddiegreen2 sentences2025“However, it does not foreclose the exercise of our discretion to review forfeited errors under the obvious error standard as provided by N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” Adams, ¶ 25; see also State v. Dahl, 2022 ND 212, ¶¶ 9, 11 , 982 N.W.2d 580 (explaining the statement—“if a motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial on specified grounds and those grounds did not include the claim on appeal, the defendant does not preserve that issue for review”—“should not be read to foreclose exercise of our discretion to review forfeited errors under the obvious error standard”). [¶6] “Obvious error review 2025“However, it does not foreclose the exercise of our discretion to review forfeited errors under the obvious error standard as provided by N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” Adams, ¶ 25; see also State v. Dahl, 2022 ND 212, ¶¶ 9, 11 , 982 N.W.2d 580 (explaining the statement—“if a motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial on specified grounds and those grounds did not include the claim on appeal, the defendant does not preserve that issue for review”—“should not be read to foreclose exercise of our discretion to review forfeited errors under the obvious error standard”). [¶6] “Obvious error review | 1 | 6 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). 2022“When an appellant does not 5 argue that a forfeited error is reversible under the obvious error standard, it is difficult for an appellate court to conclude this burden has been satisfied.” State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 (citing State v. Whitman, 2013 ND 183, ¶ 10 , 838 N.W.2d 401 ). [¶20] On appeal, Thomas does not argue obvious error and we will not address it further. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2025To satisfy the obvious error standard, Chambers must show “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) the error affects 2 substantial rights.” Id. (quoting State v. Miller, 2001 ND 132, ¶ 25 , 631 N.W.2d 587 ). 2025To satisfy the obvious error standard, Chambers must show “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) the error affects 2 substantial rights.” Id. (quoting State v. Miller, 2001 ND 132, ¶ 25 , 631 N.W.2d 587 ). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Dopplergreen2 sentences2025“The rationale for that rule precludes a defendant from inviting error in the hope that if the defendant does not prevail in the trial court, he will prevail upon appellate review of the invited error.” Id. (quoting State v. Doppler, 2013 ND 54 , ¶ 14, 828 N.W.2d 502 ). 2022To establish an obvious error, the appellant must show: “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Evanson, 2021 ND 4, ¶ 11 , 953 N.W.2d 607 (citing State v. Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 ). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Dopplergreen2 sentences2025“The rationale for that rule precludes a defendant from inviting error in the hope that if the defendant does not prevail in the trial court, he will prevail upon appellate review of the invited error.” Id. (quoting State v. Doppler, 2013 ND 54 , ¶ 14, 828 N.W.2d 502 ). 2022To establish an obvious error, the appellant must show: “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Evanson, 2021 ND 4, ¶ 11 , 953 N.W.2d 607 (citing State v. Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 ). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2023We have discretion in deciding whether to correct an obvious error, and we “should exercise that discretion only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Pemberton, at ¶ 9 (quoting State v. Patterson, 2014 ND 193, ¶ 4 , 855 N.W.2d 113 ). [¶6] The district court determined there was sufficient evidence presented to support a self-defense claim. 2023We have discretion in deciding whether to correct an obvious error, and we “should exercise that discretion only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Pemberton, at ¶ 9 (quoting State v. Patterson, 2014 ND 193, ¶ 4 , 855 N.W.2d 113 ). [¶6] The district court determined there was sufficient evidence presented to support a self-defense claim. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Vondalgreen2 sentences2025Smith, 2023 ND 82, ¶ 9 (quoting State v. Vondal, 2011 ND 186, ¶ 12 , 803 N.W.2d 578 ). 2023See State v. Vondal, 2011 ND 186, ¶ 12 , 803 N.W.2d. 578 . [¶7] During cross-examination of Smith the following exchange occurred: Q: [By Mr. Younggren] You got rid of the knife? | 1 | 4 |
State v. Vondalgreen2 sentences2025Smith, 2023 ND 82, ¶ 9 (quoting State v. Vondal, 2011 ND 186, ¶ 12 , 803 N.W.2d 578 ). 2023See State v. Vondal, 2011 ND 186, ¶ 12 , 803 N.W.2d. 578 . [¶7] During cross-examination of Smith the following exchange occurred: Q: [By Mr. Younggren] You got rid of the knife? | 1 | 4 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2025See N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) (“An obvious error or defect that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). [¶5] “To establish an obvious error, the defendant must show: (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. 1 Gardner, 2023 ND 116, ¶ 5 , 992 N.W.2d 535 (quoting State v. Smith, 2023 ND 6, ¶ 5 , 984 N.W.2d 367 ). 2024Matter of Est. of Raketti, 340 N.W.2d 894, 898 (N.D. 1983). [¶8] “The obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) does not apply to errors waived through the doctrine of invited error.” State v. Yoney, 2020 ND 118, ¶ 12 , 943 N.W.2d 791 ; see also State v. Smith, 2023 ND 6, ¶ 8 , 984 N.W.2d 367 (“Obvious error review under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) does not apply to waived or invited errors.”). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2025“Our power to notice obvious error is exercised cautiously and only in exceptional situations where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Miller, 388 N.W.2d 522, 522 (N.D. 1986). 1989The alleged error does not rise to the level of obvious error, (State v. Miller, supra), and we will not address it. 2. | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Edwardsgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Interest of J.F.green | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Henesgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Priggegreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Littleghostgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hartgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Pennsylvania v. Ritchiegreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pemberton
green
2 sentences2025III [¶8] Leingang argues the district court erred in admitting two video clips from the surveillance video. [¶9] Leingang failed to make an objection, providing a response of “no objection” when the two video clips were introduced at trial. “[I]ssues not raised at trial will not be addressed on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 (quoting State v. Lott, 2019 ND 18 , ¶ 8, 921 N.W.2d 428 ). 2025III [¶8] Leingang argues the district court erred in admitting two video clips from the surveillance video. [¶9] Leingang failed to make an objection, providing a response of “no objection” when the two video clips were introduced at trial. “[I]ssues not raised at trial will not be addressed on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 (quoting State v. Lott, 2019 ND 18 , ¶ 8, 921 N.W.2d 428 ). | 15 | 2020–2025 |
State v. Lott
green
2 sentences2025III [¶8] Leingang argues the district court erred in admitting two video clips from the surveillance video. [¶9] Leingang failed to make an objection, providing a response of “no objection” when the two video clips were introduced at trial. “[I]ssues not raised at trial will not be addressed on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 (quoting State v. Lott, 2019 ND 18 , ¶ 8, 921 N.W.2d 428 ). 2025III [¶8] Leingang argues the district court erred in admitting two video clips from the surveillance video. [¶9] Leingang failed to make an objection, providing a response of “no objection” when the two video clips were introduced at trial. “[I]ssues not raised at trial will not be addressed on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 (quoting State v. Lott, 2019 ND 18 , ¶ 8, 921 N.W.2d 428 ). | 12 | 2019–2025 |
State v. Parisien
green
2 sentences2025“The burden to show an obvious error is on the appellant, and when it is not argued, it is difficult for an appellate court to conclude the burden is satisfied.” State v. Thompson, 2025 ND 3, ¶ 11 , 16 N.W.3d 204 “Only constitutional error that is ‘egregious’ or ‘grave’ is subject to the obvious error rule.” Curtis, ¶ 9 (quoting State v. Parisien, 2005 ND 152, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 306 ). 2025“The burden to show an obvious error is on the appellant, and when it is not argued, it is difficult for an appellate court to conclude the burden is satisfied.” State v. Thompson, 2025 ND 3, ¶ 11 , 16 N.W.3d 204 “Only constitutional error that is ‘egregious’ or ‘grave’ is subject to the obvious error rule.” Curtis, ¶ 9 (quoting State v. Parisien, 2005 ND 152, ¶ 17 , 703 N.W.2d 306 ). | 11 | 2006–2025 |
State v. Sah
green
2 sentences2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). 2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). | 5 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Gardner
green
2 sentences2025See N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) (“An obvious error or defect that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). [¶5] “To establish an obvious error, the defendant must show: (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. 1 Gardner, 2023 ND 116, ¶ 5 , 992 N.W.2d 535 (quoting State v. Smith, 2023 ND 6, ¶ 5 , 984 N.W.2d 367 ). 2025See N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) (“An obvious error or defect that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”). [¶5] “To establish an obvious error, the defendant must show: (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. 1 Gardner, 2023 ND 116, ¶ 5 , 992 N.W.2d 535 (quoting State v. Smith, 2023 ND 6, ¶ 5 , 984 N.W.2d 367 ). | 4 | 2023–2025 |
City of Fargo v. Lunday
green
2 sentences2025“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, 5 because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.” Id. [¶14] We decline to exercise our discretion to consider whether the district court obviously erred. 2024An “exception to the requirement of a motion for judgment of acquittal is if the trial court committed obvious error.” Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 7 (quoting City of Fargo v. Lunday, 2009 ND 9, ¶ 5 , 760 N.W.2d 136 ). | 4 | 2017–2025 |
State v. Yoney
green
2 sentences2025He is to be judged on this offense based only on the evidence regarding this offense alone. 3 [¶11] “The obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) does not apply to errors waived through the doctrine of invited error.” State v. Wiese, 2024 ND 39, ¶ 8 , 4 N.W.3d 242 (quoting State v. Yoney, 2020 ND 118, ¶ 12 , 943 N.W.2d 791 ). 2025“The obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) does not apply to errors waived through the doctrine of invited error.” State v. Wiese, 2024 ND 39, ¶ 8 , 4 N.W.3d 242 (quoting State v. Yoney, 2020 ND 118, ¶ 12 , 943 N.W.2d 791 ). | 4 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2019"Issues not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b)." Murphy , 2014 ND 202 , ¶ 6, 855 N.W.2d 647 ; State v. Fickert , 2010 ND 61 , ¶ 7, 780 N.W.2d 670 ; State v. Vandehoven , 2009 ND 165 , ¶ 8, 772 N.W.2d 603 . 2019"Issues not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b)." Murphy , 2014 ND 202 , ¶ 6, 855 N.W.2d 647 ; State v. Fickert , 2010 ND 61 , ¶ 7, 780 N.W.2d 670 ; State v. Vandehoven , 2009 ND 165 , ¶ 8, 772 N.W.2d 603 . | 4 | 2019–2023 |
State v. Yineman
green
2 sentences2017This Court has also held “[t]he exception to the requirement of a motion for judgment of acquittal is if the trial court committed obvious error.” City of Fargo v. Lunday, 2009 ND 9, ¶ 5 , 760 N.W.2d 136 (citing Yineman, 2002 ND 145, ¶21 , 651 N.W.2d 648 ). 2017This Court has also held “[t]he exception to the requirement of a motion for judgment of acquittal is if the trial court committed obvious error.” City of Fargo v. Lunday, 2009 ND 9, ¶ 5 , 760 N.W.2d 136 (citing Yineman, 2002 ND 145, ¶21 , 651 N.W.2d 648 ). | 4 | 2009–2022 |
United States v. Olano
green
2 sentences2020If a defendant establishes a forfeited obvious error involves substantial rights, “an appellate court has discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. at ¶ 16 (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 736 ). [¶11] The defendant has the burden of showing an obvious error affected substantial rights, and this Court is not required to exercise its discretion to notice obvious error when the defendant has not raised the issue on appeal. 2020If a defendant establishes a forfeited obvious error involves substantial rights, “an appellate court has discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. at ¶ 16 (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 736 ). [¶11] The defendant has the burden of showing an obvious error affected substantial rights, and this Court is not required to exercise its discretion to notice obvious error when the defendant has not raised the issue on appeal. | 4 | 1998–2020 |
State v. Frohlich
green
2 sentences2019State v. Frohlich , 2007 ND 45 , ¶ 31, 729 N.W.2d 148 . 2019State v. Frohlich , 2007 ND 45 , ¶ 31, 729 N.W.2d 148 . | 4 | 2008–2019 |
| State v. Addai green | 4 | 2011–2016 |
| State v. Aune neutral | 3 | 2023–2026 |
| State v. Chatman green | 3 | 2020–2025 |
| State v. Kruckenberg green | 3 | 2010–2024 |
| City of Fargo v. Lunday green | 3 | 2017–2024 |
| State v. Morales green | 3 | 2020–2022 |
| State v. Duncan green | 3 | 2011–2016 |
| State v. Duncan green | 3 | 2011–2016 |
| State v. Evans green | 3 | 2007–2014 |
| State v. Krull green | 3 | 2000–2005 |
| State v. Nelson neutral | 2 | 2024–2026 |
| State v. Woodman neutral | 2 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Wiese green | 2 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Studhorse green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Pulkrabek green | 2 | 2022–2023 |
| Pemberton v. State green | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Hoehn neutral | 2 | 2019–2022 |
| State v. Watkins green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Estrada neutral | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Estrada neutral | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Vandehoven green | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Blurton green | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. FICKERT green | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Alberts neutral | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Mathre neutral | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Rivet green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Pena Garcia green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Pena Garcia green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Carpenter green | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.