plain error in Michigan

2026To establish plain error, a defendant must establish that “1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights . . . . i.e., that the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2026To establish plain error, a defendant must establish that “1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights . . . . i.e., that the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2026“To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) the error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 135 ; 809 NW2d 412 (2011) (quotation marks omitted).

2026“To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: (1) error must have occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, (3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 135 ; 809 NW2d 412 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026“To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” Id., quoting People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2025Likewise, in that case, the Court found that Harbison established a plain error that affected his substantial rights when a testifying doctor stated that the victim “suffered ‘probable pediatric sexual abuse’. . . . based solely on her own opinion that [the victim’s] account of the assaults was “clear, consistent, detailed and descriptive.” Id. at 261 .

2026“Under the plain error rule, defendant bears the burden to prove (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights, i.e., prejudiced defendant by affecting the outcome of the proceedings.” Anderson, 341 Mich App at 279 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026“Under the plain error rule, defendant bears the burden to prove (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights, i.e., prejudiced defendant by affecting the outcome of the proceedings.” People v Anderson, 341 Mich App 272 , 279; 989 NW2d 832 (2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026Under the plain-error standard, the defendant must show “(1) that an error occurred, (2) that the error was plain, and (3) that the plain error affected defendant’s substantial rights.” People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 505 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011).

2026Under the plain-error standard, the defendant must show “(1) that an error occurred, (2) that the error was plain, and (3) that the plain error affected defendant’s substantial rights.” People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 505 ; 803 NW2d 200 (2011).

2024In Vaughn, 491 Mich at 665 , the Court concluded that the closure of the courtroom during voir dire was a plain error.

2022See Vaughn, 491 Mich at 667 (reasoning that “any error that is structural is likely to have an effect on the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); United States v Recio, 371 F3d 1093 , 1103 n 7 (CA 9, 2004) (“We note that structural error is particularly likely to satisfy [the] fourth prong [of the plain-error standard].”).

2026Under the plain error rule, defendant must show: “1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) . . . the plain error affected substantial rights . . . [, and 4) ] once a defendant satisfies these three requirements, an appellate court must exercise its discretion in deciding whether to reverse.” People v Randolph, 502 Mich 1, 10 ; 917 NW2d 249 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original).

2026Under the plain error rule, defendant must show: “1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) . . . the plain error affected substantial rights . . . [, and 4) ] once a defendant satisfies these three requirements, an appellate court must exercise its discretion in deciding whether to reverse.” People v Randolph, 502 Mich 1, 10 ; 917 NW2d 249 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original).

2026However, “[u]npreserved issues are reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights.” People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010).1 To establish that a claim of error warrants reversal under the plain-error standard, the following four elements must be met: First, there must have been an error.

2026However, “[u]npreserved issues are reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights.” People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465, 475 ; 802 NW2d 627 (2010).1 To establish that a claim of error warrants reversal under the plain-error standard, the following four elements must be met: First, there must have been an error.

2026To succeed under the plain-error standard, a defendant “bear[s] the burden of persuasion” and “must show that (1) error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected a substantial right of the defendant.” People v Pipes, 475 Mich 267, 279 ; 715 NW2d 290 (2006).

2026To succeed under the plain-error standard, a defendant “bear[s] the burden of persuasion” and “must show that (1) error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected a substantial right of the defendant.” People v Pipes, 475 Mich 267, 279 ; 715 NW2d 290 (2006).

2025In Carines, id. at 763-764 , our Supreme Court explained the three requirements that a defendant must satisfy to avoid forfeiture under the plain-error rule: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights. [United States v Olano, 507 US 725 , 731- 2 On appeal, defendant filed a motion to remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

2025As our Supreme Court explained in People v 1 Defendant was also charged with first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a), and was convicted of the lesser included offense of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317; however, at the request of the prosecution, the trial court dismissed the second-degree murder conviction and an accompanying conviction of felony-firearm. -3- Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999), for a defendant to avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, they must meet these three requirements: 1) [E]rror must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., cle

2023See People v Kimble, 470 Mich 305, 312 ; 684 NW2d 669 (2004). “[T]he defendant bears the burden to show that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error prejudiced substantial rights, i.e., the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.” People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 618 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011).

2023See People v Kimble, 470 Mich 305, 312 ; 684 NW2d 669 (2004). “[T]he defendant bears the burden to show that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error prejudiced substantial rights, i.e., the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.” People v Cameron, 291 Mich App 599, 618 ; 806 NW2d 371 (2011).

2018To establish plain error affecting substantial rights “three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). “ ‘Reversal is warranted only when plain error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Unger, 278 Mich App at 235 , quoting Callon, 256 Mich App at 329 . “[T]he test for prosecutorial [error] is whether a de

2018To establish plain error affecting substantial rights “three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). “ ‘Reversal is warranted only when plain error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Unger, 278 Mich App at 235 , quoting Callon, 256 Mich App at 329 . “[T]he test for prosecutorial [error] is whether a de

2024“To avoid forfeiture under the plain-error rule, the proponent must establish that a clear or obvious error occurred and that the error affected substantial rights.” Id.

2023“Generally speaking, in termination proceedings, we review unpreserved claims under the plain-error rule.” In re Beers/LeBeau-Beers, 325 Mich App 653, 677 ; 926 NW2d 832 (2018).

2026Thus, “[t]o avoid forfeiture of an unpreserved, nonconstitutional plain error, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that: (1) error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Jones, 468 Mich 345, 355 ; 662 NW2d 376 (2003) (citations omitted).

2026Thus, “[t]o avoid forfeiture of an unpreserved, nonconstitutional plain error, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that: (1) error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Jones, 468 Mich 345, 355 ; 662 NW2d 376 (2003) (citations omitted).

2026“To establish entitlement to relief under plain-error review, the defendant must establish that an error occurred, that the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and that the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392-393 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015).

2026“To establish entitlement to relief under plain-error review, the defendant must establish that an error occurred, that the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and that the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358, 392-393 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015).

2026Failure to adequately brief an issue constitutes 6 Respondent cites Rivette v Rose-Molina, 278 Mich App 327, 328 ; 750 NW2d 603 (2008), for the proposition that “[r]eview of an unpreserved error is limited to determining whether a plain error occurred that affected substantial rights.” Rivette was a child-custody case, however, and does not apply here. -5- abandonment.” Seifeddine v Jaber, 327 Mich App 514 , 519-520; 934 NW2d 64 (2019) (internal citation omitted). “[T]his Court may overlook preservation requirements if the failure to consider the issue would result in manifest injustice, if co

2026Failure to adequately brief an issue constitutes 6 Respondent cites Rivette v Rose-Molina, 278 Mich App 327, 328 ; 750 NW2d 603 (2008), for the proposition that “[r]eview of an unpreserved error is limited to determining whether a plain error occurred that affected substantial rights.” Rivette was a child-custody case, however, and does not apply here. -5- abandonment.” Seifeddine v Jaber, 327 Mich App 514 , 519-520; 934 NW2d 64 (2019) (internal citation omitted). “[T]his Court may overlook preservation requirements if the failure to consider the issue would result in manifest injustice, if co

2026“To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) the error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026We refer to one singular caseworker for purposes of brevity. -2- obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 135 ; 809 NW2d 412 (2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “[A]n error affects substantial rights if it caused prejudice, i.e., it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1, 9 ; 761 NW2d 253 (2008).

2022“Plain error occurs at the trial court level if (1) an error occurred (2) that was clear or obvious and (3) prejudiced the party, meaning it affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.” Id.

2021“Plain error occurs at the trial court level if (1) an error occurred (2) that was clear or obvious and (3) prejudiced the party, meaning it affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.” Duray Dev, LLC v Perrin, 288 Mich App 143, 150 ; 792 NW2d 749 (2010).

2018To establish plain error affecting substantial rights “three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). “ ‘Reversal is warranted only when plain error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Unger, 278 Mich App at 235 , quoting Callon, 256 Mich App at 329 . “[T]he test for prosecutorial [error] is whether a de

2018To establish plain error affecting substantial rights “three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). “ ‘Reversal is warranted only when plain error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Unger, 278 Mich App at 235 , quoting Callon, 256 Mich App at 329 . “[T]he test for prosecutorial [error] is whether a de

2019As such, “[r]eversal is only warranted if defendant was actually innocent and the plain error caused defendant to be convicted or ‘if the error “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” ’ regardless of defendant’s innocence.” Roscoe, 303 Mich App at 648 , quoting People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 454 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004), quoting People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434, 449 ; 669 NW2d 818 (2003).

2019As such, “[r]eversal is only warranted if defendant was actually innocent and the plain error caused defendant to be convicted or ‘if the error “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” ’ regardless of defendant’s innocence.” Roscoe, 303 Mich App at 648 , quoting People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 454 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004), quoting People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434, 449 ; 669 NW2d 818 (2003).

2025This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College Bd of Trustees, 343 Mich App 597 , 601; 997 NW2d 755 (2022); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 , 873 NW2d 596 (2015); Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of Murray, 336 Mich App 234 , 240-242; 970 NW2d 372 (2021); Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182 , 192-194 & n 5; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying

2025This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College Bd of Trustees, 343 Mich App 597 , 601; 997 NW2d 755 (2022); Demski v Petlick, 309 Mich App 404, 426-427 , 873 NW2d 596 (2015); Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), and the so-called “raise-or-waive” rule, see, e.g., In re Conservatorship of Murray, 336 Mich App 234 , 240-242; 970 NW2d 372 (2021); Jawad A Shah, MD, PC v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 324 Mich App 182 , 192-194 & n 5; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying

2026“Review for an unpreserved error is limited to determining whether a plain error occurred that affected substantial rights.” Id. (citation omitted). “ ‘To avoid forfeiture under the plain-error rule, three requirements must be met: (1) an error must have occurred; (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights.’ ” Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), quoting People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2026“Review for an unpreserved error is limited to determining whether a plain error occurred that affected substantial rights.” Id. (citation omitted). “ ‘To avoid forfeiture under the plain-error rule, three requirements must be met: (1) an error must have occurred; (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights.’ ” Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 336 ; 612 NW2d 838 (2000), quoting People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2026“In order to receive relief on a forfeited claim of constitutional error, a defendant must prove that (1) error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Davis, 509 Mich 52 , 67; 983 NW2d 325 (2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026However, when a forfeited error is “structural,” “the existence of a forfeited structural error alone satisfies the third prong of the plain-error standard, and a defendant need not also show the occurrence of outcome-determinative prejudice.” People v Davis, 509 Mich 52 , 74; 983 NW2d 325 (2022); see also People v Plomb, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket No. 368608); slip op at 10.