absence of plain error in Colorado

2026Where, as here, there is no objection to the error asserted on appeal, we will not reverse in the absence of plain error.3 Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63, ¶ 18 (plain error must be obvious and substantial). ¶ 13 As discussed, at the sentencing hearing, the prosecution stated there was a request for a total of $1,972 from the CVCB.

2015In many instances, the answer would be "yes." See Huynh, 98 P.3d at 911 ("[A] constructive amendment to the charges is reversible per se."); But because defendant did not object in the trial court to the jury instruction, reversal is not warranted, even on constructive amendment grounds, in the absence of plain error, Weinreich, 119 P.3d at 1078 . $54 To qualify as plain error, an error must be both "obvious and substantial." Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63, ¶ 14 , 288 P.3d 116 .

2016See People v. Honeysette , 53 P.3d 714, 717 (Colo. App. 2002) (applying the plain error standard of review where the claim of error on appeal was different from the objection at trial); cf. Udemba v. Nicoli , 237 F.3d 8, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2001) (“It is a bedrock rule that a party who unsuccessfully objects to the introduction of evidence on one ground cannot switch horses in midstream and raise an entirely new ground of objection on appeal without forfeiting the usual standard of review.”). ¶ 12 Plain error is error that is obvious, substantial, and “so undermine[s] the fundamental fairness of t

2016See People v. Honeysette, 53 P.3d 714, 717 (Colo.App.2002) (applying the plain error standard of review where the claim of error on appeal was different from the objection at trial); cf. Udemba v. Nicoli, 237 F.3d 8, 14-15 (1st Cir.2001) (“It is a bedrock rhle that a party who unsuccessfully objects to the introduction of evidence on one ground cannot switch horses in midstream and raise an entirely new ground of objection on appeal without forfeiting the usual standard of review.”). ¶ 12 Plain error is error that is obvious, substantial, and “so undermine[s] the fundamental fairness of the tr

2016See People v. Honeysette , 53 P.3d 714, 717 (Colo. App. 2002) (applying the plain error standard of review where the claim of error on appeal was different from the objection at trial); cf. Udemba v. Nicoli , 237 F.3d 8, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2001) (“It is a bedrock rule that a party who unsuccessfully objects to the introduction of evidence on one ground cannot switch horses in midstream and raise an entirely new ground of objection on appeal without forfeiting the usual standard of review.”). ¶ 12 Plain error is error that is obvious, substantial, and “so undermine[s] the fundamental fairness of t

2016See People v. Honeysette, 53 P.3d 714, 717 (Colo.App.2002) (applying the plain error standard of review where the claim of error on appeal was different from the objection at trial); cf. Udemba v. Nicoli, 237 F.3d 8, 14-15 (1st Cir.2001) (“It is a bedrock rhle that a party who unsuccessfully objects to the introduction of evidence on one ground cannot switch horses in midstream and raise an entirely new ground of objection on appeal without forfeiting the usual standard of review.”). ¶ 12 Plain error is error that is obvious, substantial, and “so undermine[s] the fundamental fairness of the tr

2015In many instances, the answer would be "yes." See Huynh, 98 P.3d at 911 ("[A] constructive amendment to the charges is reversible per se."); But because defendant did not object in the trial court to the jury instruction, reversal is not warranted, even on constructive amendment grounds, in the absence of plain error, Weinreich, 119 P.3d at 1078 . $54 To qualify as plain error, an error must be both "obvious and substantial." Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63, ¶ 14 , 288 P.3d 116 .

2015P. 52(b)."); People v. Huynh, 98 P.3d 907 , 914 (Colo. App. 2004) ("However, because this argument is raised for the first time on appeal, reversal is not warranted in the absence of plain error."). ¶ 102 In Lacallo , the interpretation advanced by the defendant was plausible, yet undecided.

2021People v. Ujaama, 2012 COA 36, ¶ 38 . ¶ 87 Plain error is error that is both “obvious” and “substantial.” Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63, ¶ 14 .

2014See People v. Ujaama, 2012 COA 36 , ¶ 36, 302 P.3d 296 .

2026See People v. Duran, 2015 COA 141, ¶ 12 (we presume material portions omitted from the record would support the court’s ruling); see also People v. Liggett, 2021 COA 51 , ¶ 53 (we do not address undeveloped arguments), aff’d, 2023 CO 22 . 5 objection (or an objection was raised on grounds different than those presented on appeal), we will not reverse in the absence of plain error.

2021See Pastrana v. Hudock, 140 P.3d 188, 189 (Colo. App. 2006) (“[W]e will not search the record for evidence to support allegations of error.”). 41 ¶ 85 Alemayehu asserts that these parts of the footage contained (1) hearsay, the admission of which violated his constitutional right to confront adverse witnesses; and (2) impermissible comments about his veracity. ¶ 86 Because Alemayehu did not object to the admission of any of the body camera footage at trial, reversal is not warranted in the absence of plain error.

2016See People v. Honeysette , 53 P.3d 714, 717 (Colo. App. 2002) (applying the plain error standard of review where the claim of error on appeal was different from the objection at trial); cf. Udemba v. Nicoli , 237 F.3d 8, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2001) (“It is a bedrock rule that a party who unsuccessfully objects to the introduction of evidence on one ground cannot switch horses in midstream and raise an entirely new ground of objection on appeal without forfeiting the usual standard of review.”). ¶ 12 Plain error is error that is obvious, substantial, and “so undermine[s] the fundamental fairness of t

2016See People v. Honeysette , 53 P.3d 714, 717 (Colo. App. 2002) (applying the plain error standard of review where the claim of error on appeal was different from the objection at trial); cf. Udemba v. Nicoli , 237 F.3d 8, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2001) (“It is a bedrock rule that a party who unsuccessfully objects to the introduction of evidence on one ground cannot switch horses in midstream and raise an entirely new ground of objection on appeal without forfeiting the usual standard of review.”). ¶ 12 Plain error is error that is obvious, substantial, and “so undermine[s] the fundamental fairness of t

2016See People v. Honeysette , 53 P.3d 714, 717 (Colo. App. 2002) (applying the plain error standard of review where the claim of error on appeal was different from the objection at trial); cf. Udemba v. Nicoli , 237 F.3d 8, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2001) (“It is a bedrock rule that a party who unsuccessfully objects to the introduction of evidence on one ground cannot switch horses in midstream and raise an entirely new ground of objection on appeal without forfeiting the usual standard of review.”). ¶ 12 Plain error is error that is obvious, substantial, and “so undermine[s] the fundamental fairness of t

2016See People v. Honeysette , 53 P.3d 714, 717 (Colo. App. 2002) (applying the plain error standard of review where the claim of error on appeal was different from the objection at trial); cf. Udemba v. Nicoli , 237 F.3d 8, 14-15 (1st Cir. 2001) (“It is a bedrock rule that a party who unsuccessfully objects to the introduction of evidence on one ground cannot switch horses in midstream and raise an entirely new ground of objection on appeal without forfeiting the usual standard of review.”). ¶ 12 Plain error is error that is obvious, substantial, and “so undermine[s] the fundamental fairness of t

2015Consequently, reversal is not warranted in the absence of plain error, , See People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743, 749-50 (Colo. 2005).

2013People v. Wallace, 97 P.3d 262, 269 (Colo.App.2004). 33 Because defendant failed to object to any of the prosecutor's comments that he challenges on appeal, reversal is not warrant ed in the absence of plain error.

2004See People v. Garcia, supra, 28 P.3d at 344 .

2004P. 52(b); People v. Kruse, 839 P.2d 1, 4 (Colo.1992), and plain error is not evident here.

2004See People v. Fisher, 9 P.3d 1189, 1192 (Colo.App.2000) hearsay objection raised on appeal).

2004See People v. Warren, 55 P.3d 809, 815 (Colo. App.2002).

2003See People v. Rivera, supra, 56 P.3d at 1159 .

2001See generally People v. Kruse, 889 P.2d 1, 3 (Colo.1992).