claim under the plain error (Alabama) · Go Syfert
← Alabama issues

claim under the plain error in Alabama

113 Alabama opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2026 14 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (28)

CaseFollowedCited
Hall v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 1999 · cited in 101 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2026
2 sentences

2026"The standard this Court employs in conducting plain- error review is well settled: " ' " 'The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.' Hall v. State, 820 So. 2d 113, 121 (Ala. Crim.

2026App. P., as amended effective January 12, 2023, provides: "In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals may, but shall not be obligated to, notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant." This Court will continue to review the entire record for plain error in all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed. " 'The

76101
Johnson v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 1992 · cited in 50 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1999–2015
2 sentences

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

4450
Ex Parte Browngreen
ala · 2008 · cited in 19 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2018
2 sentences

2014P. 4 In Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933, 935-36 (Ala.2008), this Court explained: “ ‘The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.

2010"The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal." Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113, 121 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999). "`"To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant's `substantial rights,' but it must also have an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations."'" Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933, 938 (Ala.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryant, 951 So.2d 724, 727 (Ala.2002), quoting in turn Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 1

1419
Hyde v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 1998 · cited in 4 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2014
2 sentences

2010"The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal." Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113, 121 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999). "`"To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant's `substantial rights,' but it must also have an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations."'" Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933, 938 (Ala.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryant, 951 So.2d 724, 727 (Ala.2002), quoting in turn Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 1

2010P., states: “In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.” “The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.” Hall v. State, 820

44
Ex Parte Womackgreen
ala · 1983 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2016
2 sentences

2010P., states: “In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.” “The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.” Hall v. State, 820

2009It is error “ ‘ “so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings.” ’ ” Saunders v. State, 10 So.3d 53, 74 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), quoting *209 Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766, 769 (Ala.1983), quoting in turn United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148, 1152 (5th Cir.1981). “ ‘The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.

33
United States v. William Timothy Chaney, A/K/A \James Kirkgreen
· 1981 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2016
2 sentences

2010P., states: “In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.” “The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.” Hall v. State, 820

2009It is error “ ‘ “so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings.” ’ ” Saunders v. State, 10 So.3d 53, 74 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), quoting *209 Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766, 769 (Ala.1983), quoting in turn United States v. Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148, 1152 (5th Cir.1981). “ ‘The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.

33
Ex Parte Bryantgreen
ala · 2002 · cited in 3 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010"The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal." Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113, 121 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999). "`"To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant's `substantial rights,' but it must also have an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury's deliberations."'" Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933, 938 (Ala.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryant, 951 So.2d 724, 727 (Ala.2002), quoting in turn Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 1

2010P., states: “In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.” “The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.” Hall v. State, 820

33
United States v. Younggreen
scotus · 1985 · cited in 72 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1999–2026
2 sentences

2026As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price, 725 So. 2d 1063 (Ala. 1998); Burgess v. State, 723 So. 2d 742 (Ala. Cr.

2026As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price, 725 So. 2d 1063 (Ala. 1998); Burgess v. State, 723 So. 2d 742 (Ala. Cr.

272
Ex Parte Hallgreen
ala · 2001 · cited in 56 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2026
2 sentences

2016P., provides: “In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.” “The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.” Hall v. State, 8

2014"The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal." Hall v. State , 820 So.2d 113 , 121 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala.2001).

256
United States v. Fradygreen
scotus · 1982 · cited in 6 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2017
2 sentences

2017App. 1999). "[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.' " United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Frady , 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n.14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982) ).

2017App. 1999). "[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.' " United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Frady , 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n.14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982) ).

26
Smith v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 2000 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2007As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2dl (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if it “seriously a£fect[s] the fairness;"integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2

22
Ex Parte Hydegreen
ala · 2000 · cited in 2 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2014
2 sentences

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

2010See also Ex paHe Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998). ‘ “In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’ ” ’ Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 232 (Ala.1996) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting in turn United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). ‘To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s “sub

12
Ex Parte Trawickgreen
ala · 1997 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
11
Ex Parte Crymesgreen
ala · 1993 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
11
McKinnis v. Stategreen
alacivapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
11
Brooks v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
11
Thompson v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
11
Lejeune v. Texasgreen
scotus · 2001 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
11
Keen v. Tennesseegreen
scotus · 2001 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
11
Ex Parte Landgreen
ala · 1996 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
11
Ex Parte Woodallgreen
ala · 1998 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
11
Saunders v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
11
Irvin v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
11
Beckworth v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
DeBruce v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
11
Johnson v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
11
Lockett v. Ohiogreen
scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
11
Dorsey v. Stategreen
alacrimapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (27)

CaseCitedYears
Price v. State. green
ala · 1998
2 sentences

2026As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price, 725 So. 2d 1063 (Ala. 1998); Burgess v. State, 723 So. 2d 742 (Ala. Cr.

2018As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price , 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed. 2d 1012 (1999)." ' " Ex parte Brown , 11 So.3d 933 , 935-36 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Hall v. State , 820 So.2d 113 , 121-22 (Ala. Crim.

651999–2026
Underwood v. Wilson green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

2018As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price , 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed. 2d 1012 (1999)." ' " Ex parte Brown , 11 So.3d 933 , 935-36 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Hall v. State , 820 So.2d 113 , 121-22 (Ala. Crim.

2018As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price , 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed. 2d 1012 (1999)." ' " Ex parte Brown , 11 So.3d 933 , 935-36 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Hall v. State , 820 So.2d 113 , 121-22 (Ala. Crim.

611999–2018
Alborola-Rodriguez v. United States green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

2018As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price , 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed. 2d 1012 (1999)." ' " Ex parte Brown , 11 So.3d 933 , 935-36 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Hall v. State , 820 So.2d 113 , 121-22 (Ala. Crim.

2018As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price , 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed. 2d 1012 (1999)." ' " Ex parte Brown , 11 So.3d 933 , 935-36 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Hall v. State , 820 So.2d 113 , 121-22 (Ala. Crim.

601999–2018
Meece v. Rolex Watch, U. S. A., Inc. green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

2018As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price , 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed. 2d 1012 (1999)." ' " Ex parte Brown , 11 So.3d 933 , 935-36 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Hall v. State , 820 So.2d 113 , 121-22 (Ala. Crim.

2018As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young , 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price , 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed. 2d 1012 (1999)." ' " Ex parte Brown , 11 So.3d 933 , 935-36 (Ala. 2008) (quoting Hall v. State , 820 So.2d 113 , 121-22 (Ala. Crim.

601999–2018
Burgess v. State green
alacrimapp · 1997
2 sentences

2026As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is 'particularly egregious' and if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' See Ex parte Price, 725 So. 2d 1063 (Ala. 1998); Burgess v. State, 723 So. 2d 742 (Ala. Cr.

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

541999–2026
Ex Parte Burgess green
ala · 1998
2 sentences

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

501999–2015
Johnson v. State green
alacrimapp · 1993
2 sentences

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

501999–2015
Ex Parte Johnson green
ala · 1993
2 sentences

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

501999–2015
Copley v. Sammons green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

481999–2015
Reed v. United States green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

481999–2015
Appell v. Reno, Attorney General of the United States green
scotus · 1993
2 sentences

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

481999–2015
Texas v. De Freece green
scotus · 1993
2 sentences

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

481999–2015
Alabama v. Johnson green
scotus · 1993
2 sentences

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

481999–2015
Campbell v. City of Union Point green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

2015As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error doctrine applies only if the error is ‘particularly egregious’ and if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.

2014As the United States Supreme Court stated in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the plain-error- doctrine applies only if the error is “particularly egregious” and if.it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 , 119 S.Ct. 1809 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999); Burgess v. State, 723 So.2d 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 723 So.2d 770 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1052 , 119 S.Ct. 1360 , 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So

461999–2015
Walker v. Cockrell green
scotus · 2002
2 sentences

2010“The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.” Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113,121 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), affirmed, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala. 2001), cert, denied, Hall v. Alabama, 535 U.S. 1080 , 122 S.Ct. 1966 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2002).

2003Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P., provides: "In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant." As this Court stated in Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113 , 121-22 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1080 , 122 S.Ct. 1966 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2002)

82003–2010
Green v. Georgia green
scotus · 2002
2 sentences

2010“The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.” Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113,121 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), affirmed, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala. 2001), cert, denied, Hall v. Alabama, 535 U.S. 1080 , 122 S.Ct. 1966 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2002).

2003Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P., provides: "In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant." As this Court stated in Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113 , 121-22 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1080 , 122 S.Ct. 1966 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2002)

82003–2010
Shabazz v. California green
scotus · 2002
2 sentences

2010“The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.” Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113,121 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), affirmed, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala. 2001), cert, denied, Hall v. Alabama, 535 U.S. 1080 , 122 S.Ct. 1966 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2002).

2003Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P., provides: "In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant." As this Court stated in Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113 , 121-22 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1080 , 122 S.Ct. 1966 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2002)

82003–2010
Ex Parte Wood green
ala · 1998
1 sentence

2016Plain error is “error that is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Ex parte Trawick, 698 So.2d 162, 167 (Ala.1997), modified on other grounds, Ex parte Wood, 715 So.2d 819 (Ala.1998).

12016–2016
Brown v. State green
alacrimapp · 2010
12011–2011
Gray v. Department of the Army green
scotus · 1999
12009–2009
Ex Parte Parker green
ala · 1992
12007–2007
Brady v. Maryland green
scotus · 1963
12007–2007
Ex Parte DeBruce green
ala · 1994
12007–2007
Barker v. Wingo green
scotus · 1972
12005–2005
Ex Parte Johnson green
ala · 2001
12003–2003
South Carolina v. Gathers red
scotus · 1989
11992–1992
Booth v. Maryland red
scotus · 1987
11992–1992

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-40 (102) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-49 (83) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 (80) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-51 (67) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-47 (62) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-45 (53) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-52 (46) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-46 (40) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-6-2 (27) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-50 (22) AL § Ala. Code § 12-16-150 (19) AL § Ala. Code § 12-3-16 (15)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

AL 113 (1992–2026) IL 17 (1992–2026) CT 16 (1985–2014) MO 5 (2008–2019) MT 4 (2013–2023) SD 3 (1985–2024) NJ 3 (2002–2020) DC 2 (1987–1994) WY 2 (2001–2003) TN 2 (2025–2026)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check