plain error in Maryland

2020Plain error is “error which vitally affects a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.” State v. Daughton, 321 Md. 206, 211 , 582 A.2d 521, 523 (1990).

2020Plain error is “error which vitally affects a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.” State v. Daughton, 321 Md. 206, 211 , 582 A.2d 521, 523 (1990).

2020Plain error review is reserved for those errors that are “compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial.” State v. Hutchinson, 287 Md. 198, 203 , 411 A.2d 1035, 1038 (1980).

2020Plain error review is reserved for those errors that are “compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial.” State v. Hutchinson, 287 Md. 198, 203 , 411 A.2d 1035, 1038 (1980).

2017“Plain error is ‘error which vitally affects a defendant’s right to a fair trial.’ ” Richmond v. State, 330 Md. 223, 236 , 623 A.2d 630 (1993) (quoting State v. Daughton, 321 Md. 206, 211 , 582 A.2d 521 (1990)).

2017“Plain error is ‘error which vitally affects a defendant’s right to a fair trial.’ ” Richmond v. State, 330 Md. 223, 236 , 623 A.2d 630 (1993) (quoting State v. Daughton, 321 Md. 206, 211 , 582 A.2d 521 (1990)).

2023Our chagrin at the increasingly casual invocation of the plain error doctrine, however, compels us to repeat our stern admonition in Morris v. State, 153 Md.

2023Our chagrin at the increasingly casual invocation of the plain error doctrine, however, compels us to repeat our stern admonition in Morris v. State, 153 Md.

2025Plain error review is “‘reserved for those errors that are compelling, extraordinary, exceptional[,] or fundamental to assure the defendant of a fair trial.’” Id. (quoting Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 111 (2009)).

2023The Court also opined that Mr. Clark’s Sixth Amendment claim appeared meritorious, but that the proper way to raise it would be a post-conviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 3 As we stated in Newton v. State: Plain error review is “reserved for those errors that are compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant of a fair trial.” Before we can exercise our discretion to find plain error, four conditions must be met: (1) “there must be an error or defect—some sort of ‘deviation from a legal rule’—that has not been intentionally relinquished or aban

2012Plain error “review is reserved for those errors that are ‘compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant of [a] fair trial.’ ” Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 111 , 976 A.2d 1072 (2009) (quoting Rubin v. State, 325 Md. 552, 588 , 602 A.2d 677 (1992)).

2012Plain error “review is reserved for those errors that are ‘compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant of [a] fair trial.’ ” Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 111 , 976 A.2d 1072 (2009) (quoting Rubin v. State, 325 Md. 552, 588 , 602 A.2d 677 (1992)).

2023The State counters that Turenne’s claims fail to meet the four prongs of the plain- error test articulated in State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 578 (2010).

2023The State counters that Turenne’s claims fail to meet the four prongs of the plain- error test articulated in State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567, 578 (2010).

2018Plain error review is reserved for errors that are "compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial." Savoy , 420 Md. at 243 , 22 A.3d 845 (2011) (quoting *580 State v. Hutchinson , 287 Md. 198 , 203, 411 A.2d 1035 (1980) ).

2018Plain error review is reserved for errors that are "compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial." Savoy , 420 Md. at 243 , 22 A.3d 845 (2011) (quoting *580 State v. Hutchinson , 287 Md. 198 , 203, 411 A.2d 1035 (1980) ).

2017But in a footnote placed immediately following the bolded text above, we qualified our approval as follows: Since the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), some jurisdictions have modified this view on the issue, particularly when there was no objection below and the threshold issue on appeal is whether the issue is preserved for appellate review, and then the matter is considered under the plain error doctrine.

2017But in a footnote placed immediately following the bolded text above, we qualified our approval as follows: Since the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), some jurisdictions have modified this view on the issue, particularly when there was no objection below and the threshold issue on appeal is whether the issue is preserved for appellate review, and then the matter is considered under the plain error doctrine.

2011Further, an appellate court “will review the unpreserved claim only where the unobjected to error can be characterized as compelling, extraordinary, exceptional, or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial by applying the plain error standard.” Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 327 , 893 A.2d 1018 (2006) (citations omitted); accord James, 191 Md.App. at 246-47 , 991 A.2d 122 .

2011Further, an appellate court “will review the unpreserved claim only where the unobjected to error can be characterized as compelling, extraordinary, exceptional, or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial by applying the plain error standard.” Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 327 , 893 A.2d 1018 (2006) (citations omitted); accord James, 191 Md.App. at 246-47 , 991 A.2d 122 .

2025Plain error review is “‘reserved for those errors that are compelling, extraordinary, exceptional[,] or fundamental to assure the defendant of a fair trial.’” Id. (quoting Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 111 (2009)).

2017Plain error review is “reserved for those errors that are compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant of a fair trial.” Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 111 , 976 A.2d 1072 (2009) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted).

2023Martin, 991 A.2d at 794 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023Martin, 991 A.2d at 794 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2016This Court has noted: “The plain error hurdle, ‘high in all events, nowhere looms larger than in the context of alleged instructional errors.’ ” Peterson v. State, 196 Md.App. 563, 589 , 10 A.3d 838 (2010) (quoting Martin v. State, 165 Md.App. 189, 198 , 885 A.2d 339 (2005)).

2016This Court has noted: “The plain error hurdle, ‘high in all events, nowhere looms larger than in the context of alleged instructional errors.’ ” Peterson v. State, 196 Md.App. 563, 589 , 10 A.3d 838 (2010) (quoting Martin v. State, 165 Md.App. 189, 198 , 885 A.2d 339 (2005)).

2015Rowe appealed and we reversed, concluding that, “[e]ven though a question as to the failure of the trial court to advise the jury with respect to not returning a verdict on the indictment in the event of a finding of insane now was not included in the assignment of errors, we think we must, under the unusual circumstances of this case, take cognizance of the plain error sua sponte.” 11 Id. at 302 , 199 A.2d at 789 .

2015Rowe appealed and we reversed, concluding that, “[e]ven though a question as to the failure of the trial court to advise the jury with respect to not returning a verdict on the indictment in the event of a finding of insane now was not included in the assignment of errors, we think we must, under the unusual circumstances of this case, take cognizance of the plain error sua sponte.” 11 Id. at 302 , 199 A.2d at 789 .

2026See Mainor v. State, 475 Md. 487, 518 (2021); see also Diggs v. State, 409 Md. 260, 286 (2009) (observing that a claim of judicial bias and impartiality, in cases involving a judge questioning witnesses, may be reviewed on appeal under a plain error rationale).

2014Plain error review is a rarely used and tightly circumscribed method by which appellate courts can, at their discretion, address unpreserved errors by a trial court which “vitally affect[ ] a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.” Diggs v. State, 409 Md. 260, 286 , 973 A.2d 796 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Morris v. State, 153 Md.App. 480, 507 , 837 A.2d 248 (2003).

2015Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460, 468 , 918 A.2d 506 (2007); see also Kelly v. State, 195 Md.App. 403, 432 , 6 A.3d 396 (2010) (“[Ajppellate review under the plain error doctrine 1) always has been, 2) still is, and 3) will continue to be a rare, rare phenomenon.” (citations omitted)).

2015Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460, 468 , 918 A.2d 506 (2007); see also Kelly v. State, 195 Md.App. 403, 432 , 6 A.3d 396 (2010) (“[Ajppellate review under the plain error doctrine 1) always has been, 2) still is, and 3) will continue to be a rare, rare phenomenon.” (citations omitted)).

2015Maryland courts have “characterized instances when an appellate court should take cognizance of unobjected to error as compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial.” State v. Hutchinson, 287 Md. 198, 203 (1980). “[A]ppellate review under the plain error doctrine ‘1) always has been, 2) still is, and 3) will continue to be a rare, rare phenomenon.’” Hammersla v. State, 184 Md.

2015Maryland courts have "characterized instances when an appellate court should take cognizance of unobjected to error as compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant a fair trial.” State v. Hutchinson, 287 Md. 198, 203 , 411 A.2d 1035 (1980). “[A]ppellate review under the plain error doctrine '1) always has been, 2) still is, and 3) will continue to be a rare, rare phenomenon.’ ” Hammersla v. State, 184 Md.App. 295, 306 , 965 A.2d 912 (quoting Morris v. State, 153 Md.App. 480, 507 , 837 A.2d 248 (2003), cert. denied, 380 Md. 618 , 846 A.2d 402 (2004))), cert. den

1992In deciding whether to invoke the plain error rule, “[t]he only hard and fast rule is that there are no hard and fast rules.” Austin, 90 Md.App. at 19 , 600 A.2d 1142 .

1992In deciding whether to invoke the plain error rule, “[t]he only hard and fast rule is that there are no hard and fast rules.” Austin, 90 Md.App. at 19 , 600 A.2d 1142 .

2005Although appellant acknowledges that he failed to object on the ground that the admission of the out-of-court statements violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, he implores us to address his unpreserved claim pursuant to our discretion under the plain error doctrine because his “failure to object ... was based not on inadvertence, but on a reasonable belief that the trial court’s actions accorded with well-established law that fundamentally changed by the time of appeal.” In support of this argument, appellant cites Franklin v. State, 319 Md. 116 , 571 A.2d 1208 (1990), 13

2005Although appellant acknowledges that he failed to object on the ground that the admission of the out-of-court statements violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, he implores us to address his unpreserved claim pursuant to our discretion under the plain error doctrine because his “failure to object ... was based not on inadvertence, but on a reasonable belief that the trial court’s actions accorded with well-established law that fundamentally changed by the time of appeal.” In support of this argument, appellant cites Franklin v. State, 319 Md. 116 , 571 A.2d 1208 (1990), 13

2019In each of Brady , 393 Md. at 509 , 903 A.2d at 874 , and Hutchinson , 287 Md. at 202 , 411 A.2d at 1037 , the issue was whether a trial court committed plain error in failing to correctly instruct the jury.

2019In each of Brady , 393 Md. at 509 , 903 A.2d at 874 , and Hutchinson , 287 Md. at 202 , 411 A.2d at 1037 , the issue was whether a trial court committed plain error in failing to correctly instruct the jury.

2014The Supreme Court summarized the plain error review process in Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 , 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009): *525 [P]lain-error review involves four steps, or prongs.

2014The Supreme Court summarized the plain error review process in Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 , 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009): *525 [P]lain-error review involves four steps, or prongs.

1999In the following cases, Maryland appellate courts declined to apply the plain error doctrine to erroneous jury instructions: Walker v. State, 343 Md. 629 , 684 A.2d 429 (1996); Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602 , 645 A.2d 22 (1994); State v. Daughton, 321 Md. 206 , 582 A.2d 521 (1990)(reversing Court of Special Appeals’ application of the plain error doctrine to the trial court's jury instructions); Hall v. State, 292 Md. 683 , 441 A.2d 708 (1982); Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980); Dimery v. State, 274 Md. 661 , 338 A.2d 56 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1074 , 96 S.Ct. 857 , 47

1999In the following cases, Maryland appellate courts declined to apply the plain error doctrine to erroneous jury instructions: Walker v. State, 343 Md. 629 , 684 A.2d 429 (1996); Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602 , 645 A.2d 22 (1994); State v. Daughton, 321 Md. 206 , 582 A.2d 521 (1990)(reversing Court of Special Appeals’ application of the plain error doctrine to the trial court's jury instructions); Hall v. State, 292 Md. 683 , 441 A.2d 708 (1982); Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980); Dimery v. State, 274 Md. 661 , 338 A.2d 56 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1074 , 96 S.Ct. 857 , 47