plain error in Michigan

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.” 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) 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).

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).

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).

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].”).

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.

2024Furthermore, the trial court noted it “instructed the jury to rely only on the evidence, [and] that the arguments of the parties are not evidence[.]” Because “jurors are presumed to follow the trial court’s instructions,” People v Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657, 663 ; 683 NW2d 761 (2004), any potential error did not rise to the level of plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights, Bennett, 290 Mich App at 475 .

2025“The first two prongs of the plain-error standard require that an error exist and that it be obvious.” People v Randolph, 502 Mich 1, 11 ; 917 NW2d 249 (2018).

2025See Randolph, 502 Mich at 10 (requiring a showing of error to prevail under the plain-error rule).

2025Id. at 117 n 4 (“We need not decide at this time whether the error here was limited to a violation of a court rule, as the prosecutor argues, or was a structural constitutional error, as defendant argues, because it is undisputed that since this is an unpreserved error, defendant must satisfy the plain-error standard of Carines in either event.”).

2022See United States v Adams, 252 F3d 276, 285-286 (CA 3, 2001); United States v Ramirez-Castillo, 748 F3d 205, 215 (CA 4, 2014); Robinson v Ignacio, 360 F3d 1044, 1061 (CA 9, 2004). 17 defendant’s innocence.” Carines, 460 Mich at 763 (quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). 14 We take this opportunity to hold that a forfeited structural error creates a formal presumption that this prong of the plain-error standard has been satisfied. 15 “[T]here is substantial overlap between the characteristics of structural errors (i.e., they ‘necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair’) and the

2022See also Carines, 460 Mich at 761-762 , citing People v Grant, 445 Mich 535 ; 520 NW2d 123 (1994). 3 Cain, 498 Mich at 112 (emphasis added). 2 courts to reverse because of unpreserved error would be fatal.” ’ ” 4 “Preservation serves ‘the important need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around[.]’ ” 5 It is with this basic understanding of appellate law that this Court in Carines adopted the plain-error standard set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v Olano for forfeited constitutional errors. 6 “[I]n order to re

2022See also Carines, 460 Mich at 761-762 , citing People v Grant, 445 Mich 535 ; 520 NW2d 123 (1994). 3 Cain, 498 Mich at 112 (emphasis added). 2 courts to reverse because of unpreserved error would be fatal.” ’ ” 4 “Preservation serves ‘the important need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around[.]’ ” 5 It is with this basic understanding of appellate law that this Court in Carines adopted the plain-error standard set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v Olano for forfeited constitutional errors. 6 “[I]n order to re

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

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

2026A defendant bears 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).

2026A defendant bears 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).

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).

2026To establish plain error, “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).

2026To establish plain error, “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“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).

2023“Review of an unpreserved error is limited to determining whether a plain error occurred that affected substantial rights.” Rivette v Rose-Molina, 278 Mich App 327, 328 ; 750 NW2d 603 (2008).

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).

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

2024This Court has historically applied two different standards to unpreserved issues in the civil context: plain-error, see, e.g., Mr Sunshine v Delta College 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 ; 920 NW2d 148 (2018) (applying the so-

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).

2025To establish plain error, a party must show: “(1) that an error occurred, (2) that the error was plain, and (3) that the plain error affected [respondent]’s substantial rights.” Henderson v Dep’t of Treasury, 307 Mich App 1, 9 ; 858 NW2d 733 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025To establish plain error, a party must show: “(1) that an error occurred, (2) that the error was plain, and (3) that the plain error affected [respondent]’s substantial rights.” Henderson v Dep’t of Treasury, 307 Mich App 1, 9 ; 858 NW2d 733 (2014) (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 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). 2 This Court prefers the term “prosecutorial error” in place of “prosecutorial misconduct” except for “those extreme—and thankfully rare—instances where a prosecutor’s conduct violates the rules of professional conduct or constitutes illegal conduct.” People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). -2- or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carin

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 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 ; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). 2 This Court prefers the term “prosecutorial error” in place of “prosecutorial misconduct” except for “those extreme—and thankfully rare—instances where a prosecutor’s conduct violates the rules of professional conduct or constitutes illegal conduct.” People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). -2- or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carin