plain error in New Jersey

2025Plain error "is a 'high bar,' State v. Santamaria, 236 N.J. 390, 404 (2019), requiring reversal only where the possibility of an injustice is 'real' and 'sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached, ' State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971)." Trinidad, 241 N.J. at 445.

2025Although under the plain error rule we will consider allegations of error not brought to the trial court's attention that have a clear capacity to produce an unjust result, see R. 2:10-2; State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 337-39 (1971), we generally decline to consider issues that were not presented to the trial court, see State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 18-19 (2009); State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 , 418- 419 (2015).

2026"Nevertheless, because clear and correct jury instructions are fundamental to a fair trial, erroneous instructions in a criminal case are 'poor candidates for A-3313-22 35 rehabilitation under the plain error theory.'" Adams, 194 N.J. at 207 (quoting Jordan, 147 N.J. at 422 ).

2026"Nevertheless, because clear and correct jury instructions are fundamental to a fair trial, erroneous instructions in a criminal case are 'poor candidates for rehabilitation under the plain error theory.'" Adams, 194 N.J. at 207 (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997)).

2026Plain error applied to a jury instruction "requires demonstration of 'legal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and A-0315-24 15 sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result.'" State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006) (quoting State v. Hock, 54 N.J. 526, 538 (1969)).

2026"Plain error refers to any error 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Ibid. (quoting R. 2:10-2). "[P]lain error requires demonstration of 'legal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result.'" State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006) (quoting State v. Hock, 54 N.J. 526, 538 (1969)).

2026The plain error standard requires a determination of: "(1) whether there was error; and (2) whether that error was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result,' [Rule] 2:10-2; that is, whether there is 'a reasonable doubt . . . as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.'" State v. Dunbrack, 245 N.J. 531 , 544 (2021) (quoting State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66, 79 (2016)).

2026The plain error standard involves a two-fold determination: "(1) whether there was error; and (2) whether that error was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result,' R. 2:10-2; that is, whether there is 'a reasonable doubt . . . as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.'" State v. Dunbrack, 245 N.J. 531 , 544 (2021) (quoting State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66, 79 (2016)) (omission in original).

2026"Plain error is a high bar and constitutes 'error not properly preserved for appeal but of a magnitude dictating appellate consideration.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Bueso, 225 N.J. 193, 202 (2016)).

2026"Plain error has intentionally been created as a high bar for parties to meet in order to encourage litigants to raise any objections to evidence at the trial level where the court can best 'forestall or correct a potential error,' in a timely manner." State v. Santamaria, 236 N.J. 390, 409 (2019) (quoting State v. Bueso, 225 N.J. 193, 203 (2016)). "[E]ven if it were error, a party cannot strategically withhold its objection to risky or unsavory evidence at trial only to raise the issue on appeal when the tactic does not pan out." Ibid.

2026"Relief under the plain error rule, R. 2:10-2, at least in civil cases, is discretionary and 'should be sparingly employed.'" Baker v. Nat'l State Bank, 161 N.J. 220, 226 (1999) (quoting Ford v. Reichert, 23 N.J. 429, 435 (1957)).

2026"Relief under the plain error rule, Rule 2:10-2, at least in civil cases, is discretionary and 'should be sparingly employed.'" Baker v. Nat'l State Bank, 161 N.J. 220, 226 (1999) (quoting Ford v. Reichert, 23 N.J. 429, 435 (1957)).

2026Plain error in a jury charge is "[l]egal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a A-3280-22 12 clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533, 554 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Adams, 194 N.J. at 207).

2026"Nevertheless, because clear and correct jury instructions are fundamental to a fair trial, erroneous instructions in a criminal case are 'poor candidates for rehabilitation under the plain error theory.'" Adams, 194 N.J. at 207 (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997)).

2026"To determine whether an alleged error rises to the level of plain error, it 'must be evaluated in light of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State v. Clark, 251 N.J. 266 , 287 (2022) (quoting State v. Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. 452, 468 (2018)) (internal quotes omitted).

2026"To determine whether an alleged error rises to the level of plain error, it 'must be evaluated "in light of the overall strength of the State's case."'" State v. Clark, 251 N.J. 266 , 287 (2022) (quoting State v. Sanchez- Medina, 231 N.J. 452, 468 (2018)).

2026Plain error in a jury charge is "[l]egal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533, 554 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Adams, 194 N.J. at 207 ).

2026Plain error in a jury charge is "[l]egal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a A-3280-22 12 clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533, 554 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Adams, 194 N.J. at 207).

2024Plain error in the context of a jury charge is "[l]egal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." [State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 564 (2005) (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997)).] A-1860-21 40 "Nevertheless, because clear and correct jury instructions are fundamental to a fair trial, erroneous instructions in a criminal case are 'poor candidates for rehabilita

2024Plain error in the context of a jury charge is "[l]egal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." [State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 564 (2005) (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997)).] A-1860-21 40 "Nevertheless, because clear and correct jury instructions are fundamental to a fair trial, erroneous instructions in a criminal case are 'poor candidates for rehabilita

2026Plain error applied to a jury instruction "requires demonstration of 'legal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and A-0315-24 15 sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result.'" State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006) (quoting State v. Hock, 54 N.J. 526, 538 (1969)).

2026"Plain error refers to any error 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Ibid. (quoting R. 2:10-2). "[P]lain error requires demonstration of 'legal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result.'" State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006) (quoting State v. Hock, 54 N.J. 526, 538 (1969)).

2026"Relief under the plain error rule, R. 2:10-2, at least in civil cases, is discretionary and 'should be sparingly employed.'" Baker v. Nat'l State Bank, 161 N.J. 220, 226 (1999) (quoting Ford v. Reichert, 23 N.J. 429, 435 (1957)).

2026"Relief under the plain error rule, Rule 2:10-2, at least in civil cases, is discretionary and 'should be sparingly employed.'" Baker v. Nat'l State Bank, 161 N.J. 220, 226 (1999) (quoting Ford v. Reichert, 23 N.J. 429, 435 (1957)).

2026"Plain error is that which is 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" State v. Singleton, 211 N.J. 157, 182 (2012) (quoting R. 2:10-2); see also Willner v. Vertical Reality, Inc., 235 N.J. 65, 79 (2018).

2025Plain error in the context of a jury charge "requires demonstration of legal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." Singleton, 211 N.J. at 182-83 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289 (2006)).

2026Therefore, "the failure to object to a jury instruction requires review under the plain error standard." State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 473 (2007) (citing State v. Bunch, 180 N.J. 534, 541 (2004)).

2026Therefore, "the failure to object to a jury instruction requires review under the plain error standard." State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 473 (2007) (citing State v. Bunch, 180 N.J. 534, 541 (2004)).

2026"Plain error has intentionally been created as a high bar for parties to meet in order to encourage litigants to raise any objections to evidence at the trial level where the court can best 'forestall or correct a potential error,' in a timely manner." State v. Santamaria, 236 N.J. 390, 409 (2019) (quoting State v. Bueso, 225 N.J. 193, 203 (2016)). "[E]ven if it were error, a party cannot strategically withhold its objection to risky or unsavory evidence at trial only to raise the issue on appeal when the tactic does not pan out." Ibid.

2026"Plain error has intentionally been created as a high bar for parties to meet in order to encourage litigants to raise any objections to evidence at the trial level where the court can best 'forestall or correct a potential error,' in a timely manner." State v. Santamaria, 236 N.J. 390, 409 (2019) (quoting State v. Bueso, 225 N.J. 193, 203 (2016)). "[E]ven if it were error, a party cannot strategically withhold its objection to risky or unsavory evidence at trial only to raise the issue on appeal when the tactic does not pan out." Ibid.

2024We consider the argument under the plain-error standard and will reverse his conviction only if the court made an error "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312, 341 (2007) (citing R. 2:10-2); see also State v. Singh, 245 N.J. 1 , 13 (2021) (explaining "[w]hen a defendant does not object to an alleged error at trial, such error is reviewed under the plain error standard"). "'The test for granting severance . . . is a rigorous one,'" State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138, 160 (2001) (quoting State v. Brown, 118 N.J. 595, 605-06 (1990)), under which the court "must ba

2022Plain error, in the context of an allegedly improper jury charge, "requires demonstration of legal impropriety of the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing co urt and to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." Ibid. (quoting State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312, 341 (2007)).

2026Under the plain error standard, we will affirm unless the "error possess[es] a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result and . . . substantially prejudice[s] the defendant's fundamental right to have the jury fairly evaluate the merits of [their] defense." State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427, 444 (1989) (quoting State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380, 396 (1962)).

2022On the other hand, evidentiary issues not objected to at trial are subject to the plain error rule; that is, "error possessing a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result and which substantially prejudiced the defendant's fundamental right to have the jury fairly evaluate the merits of his defense." State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427, 444 (1989) (quoting State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380, 396 (1962)).

2026Because defendant raises the issue for the first time on appeal, we again review for plain error to determine if the alleged error is "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Montalvo, 229 N.J. at 320-21 (quoting R. 2:10-2); see also State v. Reeds, 197 N.J. 280, 298 (2009) ("[W]hen counsel fails to object to offensive testimony, we . . . apply the plain error standard of review . . . .").

2025Because defendant raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we review for A-2793-22 38 plain error and determine if the alleged error is "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." State v. Montalvo, 229 N.J. 300, 320-21 (2017) (quoting R. 2:10- 2); see State v. Reeds, 197 N.J. 280, 298 (2009) ("[W]hen counsel fails to object to offensive testimony, we . . . apply the plain error standard of review . . . .").

2022"To determine whether an alleged error rises to the level of plain error, it must be evaluated in light of the overall strength of the State's case." A-3808-19 13 State v. Singh, 245 N.J. 1 , 14–15 (2021); accord State v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73, 90 (2010).

2021To determine whether an alleged error rises to the level of plain error, it “must be evaluated ‘in light of the overall strength of the State’s case.’” State v. Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. 452, 468 (2018) (quoting State v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73, 90 (2010)).

2025Id. at 80 (reviewing alleged error based on prosecutor's A-3424-22 20 summation under a plain-error standard of review when defendant made no objection to the summation at trial).

2025Id. at 80 (reviewing alleged error based on prosecutor's A-3424-22 20 summation under a plain-error standard of review when defendant made no objection to the summation at trial).

2024Importantly, moreover, "[t]o determine whether an alleged error rises to the level of plain error, it 'must be evaluated in light of the overall strength of the State's case.'" Id. at 13-14 (quoting State v. Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. 452, 468 (2018)).

2024Importantly, moreover, "[t]o determine whether an alleged error rises to the level of plain error, it 'must be evaluated in light of the overall strength of the State's case.'" Id. at 13-14 (quoting State v. Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. 452, 468 (2018)).

2024See R. 2:10-2; State v. Singh, 245 N.J. 1 , 13 (2021) (explaining that "[w]hen a defendant does not object to an alleged error at trial, such error is reviewed under the plain error standard"). "[A]n unchallenged error constitutes plain error if it was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result,'" Singh, 245 N.J. at 13 (quoting R. 2:10-2), and "raise[s] 'a reasonable doubt . . . as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached,'" State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66, 79 (2016) (omission in original) (quoting State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347, 361 (2004)).

2024See R. 2:10-2; State v. Singh, 245 N.J. 1 , 13 (2021) (explaining that "[w]hen a defendant does not object to an alleged error at trial, such error is reviewed under the plain error standard"). "[A]n unchallenged error constitutes plain error if it was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result,'" Singh, 245 N.J. at 13 (quoting R. 2:10-2), and "raise[s] 'a reasonable doubt . . . as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached,'" State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66, 79 (2016) (omission in original) (quoting State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347, 361 (2004)).

2026A jury instruction is particularly "crucial to the jury's deliberations on the guilt of a criminal defendant[,]" and "'[e]rrors [having a direct impact] upon these sensitive areas of a criminal trial are poor candidates for rehabilitation' under the plain error theory." State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422-23 (1997) (quoting State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 (1979)).

2024A jury instruction is particularly "crucial to the jury's deliberations on the guilt of a criminal defendant," and "'[e]rrors [having a direct impact] upon these sensitive areas of a criminal trial are poor candidates for rehabilitation' under the plain error theory." State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422-23 (1997) (quoting State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 (1979)).

2024A-0532-22 19 For the sake of argument, were we to assume that the officer's testimony was improper under the Confrontation Clause, "[w]hen a defendant does not object to an alleged error at trial, such error is reviewed under the plain error standard." State v. Singh, 245 N.J. 1 , 13 (2021) (citing R. 2:10-2); see also State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 471 (2002) (holding that a failure to object to testimony permits an inference that any error in admitting the testimony was not prejudicial).

2024A-0532-22 19 For the sake of argument, were we to assume that the officer's testimony was improper under the Confrontation Clause, "[w]hen a defendant does not object to an alleged error at trial, such error is reviewed under the plain error standard." State v. Singh, 245 N.J. 1 , 13 (2021) (citing R. 2:10-2); see also State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 471 (2002) (holding that a failure to object to testimony permits an inference that any error in admitting the testimony was not prejudicial).

2020A-4010-17T4 28 When a defendant raises prosecutorial misconduct for the first time on appeal, we need only be concerned with "whether the remarks, if improper, substantially prejudiced the defendant['s] fundamental right to have the jury fairly evaluate the merits of [his or her] defense, and thus had a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." Johnson, 31 N.J. at 510 ; see State v. Ross, 229 N.J. 389, 407 (2017) (noting that under the plain error standard of review, R. 2:10-2, "[t]he possibility of an unjust result must be 'sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error

2017As defense counsel did not object, we apply a plain error standard of review, and determine whether "defendant [met] the burden of proving that the error was clear and obvious and that it affected his substantial rights." State v. Koskovitch, 168 N.J. 448, 529 (2001); see also State v. Williams, 168 N.J. 323, 336 (2001) (stating defendant must show "the error possessed a clear capacity for producing an unjust result"); R. 2:10-2.

2020A-4010-17T4 28 When a defendant raises prosecutorial misconduct for the first time on appeal, we need only be concerned with "whether the remarks, if improper, substantially prejudiced the defendant['s] fundamental right to have the jury fairly evaluate the merits of [his or her] defense, and thus had a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." Johnson, 31 N.J. at 510 ; see State v. Ross, 229 N.J. 389, 407 (2017) (noting that under the plain error standard of review, R. 2:10-2, "[t]he possibility of an unjust result must be 'sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error

2020A-2755-17T1 16 Under the plain error standard's "high bar," id. at 404 , "[w]e may reverse . . . only if the error was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result,'" Ross, 229 N.J. at 407 (quoting R. 2:10-2).

2021Where "a defendant fails to raise an issue at trial, appellate review is governed by the plain error standard." State v. Maloney, 216 N.J. 91, 104 (2013).

2019"When a defendant fails to raise an issue at trial, appellate review is governed by the plain error standard." State v. Maloney, 216 N.J. 91, 104 (2013).

2021"Plain error is 'error possessing a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result and which substantially prejudiced the defendant's fundamental right to have the jury fairly evaluate the merits of his defense.'" Timmendequas, 161 N.J. at 576 - 77 (quoting State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427, 444 (1989)).

2021"Plain error is [an] 'error possessing a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result and which substantially prejudiced the defendant's fundamental right to have the jury fairly evaluate the merits of his defense.'" State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515 , 576–77 (1999) (quoting State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427, 444 (1989)).