federal plain error in Georgia

2026Instead, as explained in Kelly, the seminal case from our Court adopting the federal plain error standard to unobjected-to jury instruction errors, the question is whether “the error must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means [she] must demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings.” Kelly, 290 Ga. at 33 .

2026Instead, as explained in Kelly, the seminal case from our Court adopting the federal plain error standard to unobjected-to jury instruction errors, the question is whether “the error must have affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means [she] must demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings.” Kelly, 290 Ga. at 33 .

2026But as Duerfeldt acknowledges, because he did not object to Brown’s testimony, the ruling related to this evidence is only “subject to review on appeal for plain error affecting substantial rights.”2 In this respect, the Supreme Court of Georgia has adopted the federal plain-error standard of review, as explained by the Supreme Court of the United States in Puckett v. United States.3 Under this four-pronged test, 2 Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 326 (3) ( 781 SE2d 772 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted).

2026But as Duerfeldt acknowledges, because he did not object to Brown’s testimony, the ruling related to this evidence is only “subject to review on appeal for plain error affecting substantial rights.”2 In this respect, the Supreme Court of Georgia has adopted the federal plain-error standard of review, as explained by the Supreme Court of the United States in Puckett v. United States.3 Under this four-pronged test, 2 Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 326 (3) ( 781 SE2d 772 ) (2016) (punctuation omitted).

2020We have adopted the federal plain-error test, as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (II) ( 129 SCt 1423 , 173 LE2d 266) (2009), which requires: First, there must be an error or defect — some sort of deviation from a legal rule — that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e., affirmatively waived, by the appellant.

2020We have adopted the federal plain-error test, as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (II) ( 129 SCt 1423 , 173 LE2d 266) (2009), which requires: First, there must be an error or defect — some sort of deviation from a legal rule — that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e., affirmatively waived, by the appellant.

2015See Ross v. State, 296 Ga. 636, 639, n. 6 ( 769 SE2d 43 ) (2015) (discussing OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) (“Nothing in this Code section [relating to rulings regarding the admission of evidence] shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court.”)). 12 In Lynd, 262 Ga. at 61 (8), n. 2, we adopted the federal plain error test set forth in an Eleventh Circuit case, United States v. Fuentes-Coba, 738 F2d 1191, 1196 (III) (11th Cir. 1984), as setting forth the elements of plain error review.

2011In accordance with the federal plain error rule, we have previously defined "plain error" as "that which is `so clearly erroneous as to result in a likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice' or which `seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of a judicial proceeding.' United States v. Fuentes-Coba, 738 F.2d 1191, 1196 (11th Cir.1984)." Lynd v. State, 262 Ga. 58, 61 (8), n. 2, 414 S.E.2d 5 (1992).

2017When this Court adopted the plain error rule in State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 33 (2) (a) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011), we stated that [g]iven that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) adopts Rule 52 (b)’s language almost verbatim, we believe our Legislature intended, in the context of jury instruction errors, to embrace the federal plain error standard as stated in Rule 52 (b) and clarified in [United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725 (II) ( 113 SCt 1770 , 123 LE2d 508) (1993)] and its progeny.

2017When this Court adopted the plain error rule in State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29, 33 (2) (a) ( 718 SE2d 232 ) (2011), we stated that [g]iven that OCGA § 17-8-58 (b) adopts Rule 52 (b)’s language almost verbatim, we believe our Legislature intended, in the context of jury instruction errors, to embrace the federal plain error standard as stated in Rule 52 (b) and clarified in [United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725 (II) ( 113 SCt 1770 , 123 LE2d 508) (1993)] and its progeny.

2020Carlson & Michael Scott Carlson, Carlson on Evidence, p. 171 (6th ed. 2018) (noting that Georgia law with regard to prior difficulties is consistent with federal and other state authority classifying such as evidence as “intrinsic”). 14 Flowers, 307 Ga. at 621 (2) (punctuation omitted); accord State v. Jones, 297 Ga. 156, 159 (1) ( 773 SE2d 170 ) (2015). 10 “subject to review on appeal for plain error affecting substantial rights.”15 In this regard, the Supreme Court of Georgia has adopted the federal plain-error standard of review, as articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in P

2020Carlson & Michael Scott Carlson, Carlson on Evidence, p. 171 (6th ed. 2018) (noting that Georgia law with regard to prior difficulties is consistent with federal and other state authority classifying such as evidence as “intrinsic”). 14 Flowers, 307 Ga. at 621 (2) (punctuation omitted); accord State v. Jones, 297 Ga. 156, 159 (1) ( 773 SE2d 170 ) (2015). 10 “subject to review on appeal for plain error affecting substantial rights.”15 In this regard, the Supreme Court of Georgia has adopted the federal plain-error standard of review, as articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in P

2020Carlson & Michael Scott Carlson, Carlson on Evidence, p. 171 (6th ed. 2018) (noting that Georgia law with regard to prior difficulties is consistent with federal and other state authority classifying such as evidence as “intrinsic”). 14 Flowers, 307 Ga. at 621 (2) (punctuation omitted); accord State v. Jones, 297 Ga. 156, 159 (1) ( 773 SE2d 170 ) (2015). 10 “subject to review on appeal for plain error affecting substantial rights.”15 In this regard, the Supreme Court of Georgia has adopted the federal plain-error standard of review, as articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in P

2017See Sanchez v. State, 285 Ga. 749 (3) ( 684 SE2d 251 ) (2009). 12 the federal plain error standard as set out in Puckett v. United States, 556 U. S. 129 (II) (a) ( 129 SCt 1423 , 173 LE2d 266) (2009), which involves the following four prongs: First, there must be an error or defect — some sort of “[d]eviation from a legal rule” — that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e., affirmatively waived, by the appellant.

2017See Sanchez v. State, 285 Ga. 749 (3) ( 684 SE2d 251 ) (2009). 12 the federal plain error standard as set out in Puckett v. United States, 556 U. S. 129 (II) (a) ( 129 SCt 1423 , 173 LE2d 266) (2009), which involves the following four prongs: First, there must be an error or defect — some sort of “[d]eviation from a legal rule” — that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e., affirmatively waived, by the appellant.

2015See Cheddersingh v. State, 290 Ga. 680, 684 ( 724 SE2d 3 The crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is not truly a “status” offense in the way the law normally uses that term.

2015See Ross v. State, 296 Ga. 636, 639, n. 6 ( 769 SE2d 43 ) (2015) (discussing OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) (“Nothing in this Code section [relating to rulings regarding the admission of evidence] shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court.”)). 12 In Lynd, 262 Ga. at 61 (8), n. 2, we adopted the federal plain error test set forth in an Eleventh Circuit case, United States v. Fuentes-Coba, 738 F2d 1191, 1196 (III) (11th Cir. 1984), as setting forth the elements of plain error review.

2015See Ross v. State, 296 Ga. 636, 639, n. 6 ( 769 SE2d 43 ) (2015) (discussing OCGA § 24-1-103 (d) (“Nothing in this Code section [relating to rulings regarding the admission of evidence] shall preclude a court from taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although such errors were not brought to the attention of the court.”)). 12 In Lynd, 262 Ga. at 61 (8), n. 2, we adopted the federal plain error test set forth in an Eleventh Circuit case, United States v. Fuentes-Coba, 738 F2d 1191, 1196 (III) (11th Cir. 1984), as setting forth the elements of plain error review.

2011In accordance with the federal plain error rule, we have previously defined "plain error" as "that which is `so clearly erroneous as to result in a likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice' or which `seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of a judicial proceeding.' United States v. Fuentes-Coba, 738 F.2d 1191, 1196 (11th Cir.1984)." Lynd v. State, 262 Ga. 58, 61 (8), n. 2, 414 S.E.2d 5 (1992).