plain error in Mississippi

2024“The plain error doctrine has a two-part test which requires: (i) an error at the trial level and (ii) such error resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Stephens v. State, 911 So. 2d 424, 432 (Miss. 2005) (citing Gray v. State, 549 So. 2d 1316, 1321 (Miss. 1989)). ¶28.

2024“The plain error doctrine has a two-part test which requires: (i) an error at the trial level and (ii) such error resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Stephens v. State, 911 So. 2d 424, 432 (Miss. 2005) (citing Gray v. State, 549 So. 2d 1316, 1321 (Miss. 1989)). ¶16.

2024“Under the plain-error doctrine, we can recognize obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant on appeal, and which affects a defendant’s ‘fundamental, substantive right.’” Smith v. State, 986 So. 2d 290, 294 (Miss. 2008) (quoting Debrow v. State, 972 So. 2d 550, 553 (Miss. 2007)).

2023“Under the plain-error doctrine, we can recognize obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant . . . and which affects a defendant’s ‘fundamental, substantive right.’” Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676, 682 (Miss. 2012) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Smith v. State, 986 So. 2d 290, 294 (Miss. 2008)).

2026This Court only applies the plain error rule “when a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights are affected.” Id. (quoting Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss. 1991)). ¶19.

2025“The plain error rule will only be applied when a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights are affected.” Flora v. State, 925 So. 2d 797, 811 (Miss. 2006) (citing Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss. 1991)). ¶10.

2026The plain error rule has two requirements: “The plain error doctrine requires that there be an error and that the error must have resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Williams v. State, 794 So. 2d 181, 187 (Miss. 2001, overruled on other grounds by Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698, 703 (Miss. 2008)).

2018The plain error doctrine requires that error exists and that the error "resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice." Walters v. State , 206 So.3d 524 , 530 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2016) (quoting Williams v. State , 794 So.2d 181 , 187 (¶ 23) (Miss. 2001) ).

2025“For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that resulted in a 2 The parties and the trial transcript use the spelling “Bueller,” while Neely’s medical records use the spelling “Buehler.” This Court will use the spelling chosen by the parties. 4 manifest miscarriage of justice or ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676, 682 (Miss. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698 (Miss. 2008)).

2025Phillips asserts, however, that we should review for plain error.“For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice or ‘seriously affects[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676, 682 (Miss. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698 (Miss. 2008)). ¶23.

2026This Court only applies the plain error rule “when a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights are affected.” Id. (quoting Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss. 1991)). ¶19.

2026The plain error rule has two requirements: “The plain error doctrine requires that there be an error and that the error must have resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Williams v. State, 794 So. 2d 181, 187 (Miss. 2001, overruled on other grounds by Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698, 703 (Miss. 2008)).

2026Under circumstances in which “no contemporaneous objection is made at trial, a party must rely on the plain error rule to raise the assignment of error on appeal.” Flora v. State, 925 So. 2d 797, 811 (Miss. 2006) (citing Foster v. State, 639 So. 2d 1263, 1289 (Miss. 1994)).

2025“The plain error rule will only be applied when a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights are affected.” Flora v. State, 925 So. 2d 797, 811 (Miss. 2006) (citing Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss. 1991)). ¶10.

2026Under circumstances in which “no contemporaneous objection is made at trial, a party must rely on the plain error rule to raise the assignment of error on appeal.” Flora v. State, 925 So. 2d 797, 811 (Miss. 2006) (citing Foster v. State, 639 So. 2d 1263, 1289 (Miss. 1994)).

2026The plain error rule has two requirements: “The plain error doctrine requires that there be an error and that the error must have resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Williams v. State, 794 So. 2d 181, 187 (Miss. 2001, overruled on other grounds by Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698, 703 (Miss. 2008)).

2026“For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Hall v. State, 201 So. 3d 424, 428 (¶12) (Miss. 2016).

2026“For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Swinney, 241 So. 3d at 605 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hall v. State, 201 So. 3d 424, 428 (Miss. 2016)).

2026Concerning such an analysis, the supreme court stated in Pegues v. State, 426 So. 3d 1078 , 1083 (¶22) (Miss. 2026): The plain-error doctrine allows the Court “to correct ‘obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant and which affects a defendant's fundamental, substantive right.’” Wilson v. State, 194 So. 3d 855, 863 (¶25) (Miss. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. State, 155 So. 3d 733, 738 [(¶8)] (Miss. 2014)).

2026“For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Johnson, 155 So. 3d at 738 ).

2024This Court has held that the plain error doctrine applies to illegal sentencing because “[a]n accused has a fundamental right to be free of an illegal sentence.” Grayer v. State, 120 So. 3d 964, 969 (Miss. 2013) (citing Kennedy v. State, 732 So. 2d 184, 186 (Miss. 1999)).

2016We apply the plain-error rule only if “a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights are affected.” Foster v. State, 148 So. 3d 1012, 1018 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2014) (quoting Grayer v. State, 120 So. 3d 964, 969 (Miss. 2013)).

2024For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Burdette v. State, 110 So. 3d 296, 303 (¶23) (Miss. 2013).

2024“For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that resulted in a manifest 26 miscarriage of justice or seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Burdette v. State, 110 So. 3d 296, 303 (¶23) (Miss. 2013). ¶55.

2026“The plain error doctrine is employed only in situations when a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights are affected.” Green v. State, 183 So. 3d 28, 31 (¶6) (Miss. 2016) (quotation marks omitted).

2023“The plain error doctrine is employed only in situations when a ‘defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights are affected.’” Green v. State, 183 So. 3d 28, 31 (Miss. 2016) (quoting Flora v. State, 925 So. 2d 797, 811 (Miss. 2006)).

2008Under the plain-error doctrine, we can recognize obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant on appeal, and which affects a defendant's "fundamental, substantive right." See Debrow v. State, 972 So.2d 550 (Miss.2007) (recognizing as plain error that the admission of evidence of defendant's blood alcohol content was in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation); Sanders v. State, 678 So.2d 663, 670 (Miss.1996) (quoting Gray v. State, 549 So.2d 1316, 1321 (Miss.1989) ("It has been established that where fundamental rights are violated, procedural rules give way to

2006Under the plain-error doctrine, we can recognize obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant on appeal, and which affects a defendant’s “fundamental, substantive right.” See Debrow v. State, 972 So. 2d 550 (Miss. 2007) (recognizing as plain error that the admission of evidence of defendant’s blood alcohol content was in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation); Sanders v. State, 678 So. 2d 663, 670 (Miss. 1996) (quoting Gray v. State, 549 So. 2d 1316, 1321 (Miss. 1989) (“It has been established that where fundamental rights are violated, procedural rules give w

2025Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(3) states: “[n]o issue not distinctly identified shall be argued by counsel, expect upon request of the court, but the court may, at its option, notice a plain error not identified or distinctly specified.” Plain error applies when there has been “a deviation from a legal rule by the trial court that is plain, clear, obvious, and has prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” Maness v. K &A Enters. of Miss., LLC, 250 33 So. 3d 402, 410 (Miss. 2018) (citing McGee v. State, 953 So. 2d 211, 215 (Miss. 2007)).

2025Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(3) states: “[n]o issue not distinctly identified shall be argued by counsel, expect upon request of the court, but the court may, at its option, notice a plain error not identified or distinctly specified.” Plain error applies when there has been “a deviation from a legal rule by the trial court that is plain, clear, obvious, and has prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” Maness v. K &A Enters. of Miss., LLC, 250 33 So. 3d 402, 410 (Miss. 2018) (citing McGee v. State, 953 So. 2d 211, 215 (Miss. 2007)).

2023“The plain error doctrine is employed only in situations when a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights are affected.” Green v. State, 183 So. 3d 28, 31 (¶6) (Miss. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Flora v. State, 925 So. 2d 797, 811 (¶42) (Miss. 2006)). “[T]o determine if plain error has occurred, we must determine if the trial court has deviated from a legal rule, whether that error is plain, clear[,] or obvious, and whether the error has prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” Id. (citing Neal v. State, 15 So. 3d 388, 403 (¶32) (Miss. 2009)).

2022The plain error doctrine permits this Court to “recognize obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant and which affects a defendant’s ‘fundamental, substantive right.’” Shinstock v. State, 220 So. 3d 967, 970 (Miss. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676, 682 (Miss. 2012)). “[T]o ‘determine if plain error has occurred, we must determine if the trial court has deviated from a legal rule, whether that error is plain, clear[,] or obvious, and whether the error has prejudiced the outcome of the trial.’” Green v. State, 183 So. 3d 28, 30 (

2017Foster v. State , 639 So.2d 1263 , 1289 (Miss. 1994) ("defendant who fails to make a contemporaneous objection must rely on plain error to raise the assignment on appeal") (citing Gray v. State , 487 So.2d 1304 , 1312 (Miss. 1986) ).

2016Therefore, Birkley “must rely on the plain error rule to raise *696 th[is] assignment [of error] on appeal.” Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1289 (Miss. 1994) (citing Gray v. State, 487 So.2d 1304, 1312 (Miss. 1986)). ¶16.

2021Further, “[a] party is protected by the plain error rule when (1) he has failed to perfect his appeal and (2) when a substantial right is affected.” Id. (quoting State Highway Comm’n of Miss. v. Hyman, 592 So. 2d 952, 957 (Miss. 1991)).

2018A party is protected by the plain error rule when (1) he has failed to perfect his appeal and (2) when a substantial right is affected. 9 State Highway Comm’n of Mississippi v. Hyman, 592 So. 2d 952, 957 (Miss. 1991) (internal citations omitted).

2024“The plain error doctrine has a two-part test which requires: (i) an error at the trial level and (ii) such error resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Stephens v. State, 911 So. 2d 424, 432 (Miss. 2005) (citing Gray v. State, 549 So. 2d 1316, 1321 (Miss. 1989)). ¶28.

2024“The plain error doctrine has a two-part test which requires: (i) an error at the trial level and (ii) such error resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Stephens v. State, 911 So. 2d 424, 432 (Miss. 2005) (citing Gray v. State, 549 So. 2d 1316, 1321 (Miss. 1989)). ¶16.

2023“Applying the plain-error rule, the Court must determine (1) whether the trial court deviated from a legal rule; (2) whether the error is plain, clear, or obvious; and (3) whether the error prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” Willie v. State, 204 So. 3d 1268, 1279 (Miss. 2016) (citing Foster v. State, 148 So. 3d 1012, 1018 (Miss. 2014)).

2023“When a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights are affected, this Court will notice a plain error not identified or distinctly specified.” Pace v. State, 242 So. 3d 107, 115 (¶20) (Miss. 2018) (internal quotation mark omitted) (citing M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3); Foster v. State, 148 So. 3d 1012, 1018 (¶20) (Miss. 2014)).

2026More pointedly, “the plain-error doctrine is applied to closing arguments only when the substance of the statement is out of bounds for closing arguments.” Rice, 419 So. 3d at 989 (¶11) (quoting Ambrose, 254 So. 3d at 129 (¶161)).

2026Concerning a plain error analysis, the supreme court stated in Spiers v. State, 361 So. 3d 643 , 657 (¶41) (Miss. 2023): “Plain-error review is properly utilized for correcting obvious instances of injustice or misapplied law.” Ambrose v. State, 254 So. 3d 77, 111 (Miss. 2018) (quoting Armstead v. State, 196 So. 3d 913, 916 (Miss. 2016)).

2019But we invoke the plain-error doctrine only when a violation “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Porter v. State, 749 So. 2d 250, 261 (¶36) (Miss.

2013A plain-error analysis “includes a determination of whether there is an error that is some deviation from a legal rule; whether the error is plain, clear[,] or obvious[;] and whether the error is prejudicial in its effect upon the outcome of the trial court proceedings.” Fleming v. State, 790 So.2d 888, 892 (II8) (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (citing Porter v. State, 749 So.2d 250, 260-61 (¶ 36) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)). ¶ 14.

2026“To determine if plain error has occurred, this Court must determine if the trial court has deviated from a legal rule, whether that error is plain, clear, or obvious, and whether that error has prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” Conner v. State, 138 So. 3d 143, 151 (¶19) (Miss. 2014).

2023Plain error occurs “if the trial court has deviated from a legal rule, whether that error is plain, clear, or obvious, and whether that error has prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” Id. at 606 (¶15) (quoting Conner v. State, 138 So. 3d 143, 151 (¶19) (Miss. 2014)).

2016The plain-error doctrine requires a determination of “[whether] the trial court has deviated from a legal rule, whether that error is plain, clear or obvious, and whether the error has prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” Brown v. State, 75 So.3d 573, 577 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Cox v. State, 793 So.2d 591, 597 (¶22) (Miss.2001)).

2010In conducting a plain-error analysis, we determine “if the trial court has deviated from a legal rule, whether the error is plain, clear or obvious, and whether the error has prejudiced the outcome of the trial.” Smith v. State, 984 So.2d 295, 307 (¶43) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (quoting Cox v. State, 793 So.2d 591, 597 (¶22) (Miss.2001)). ¶ 11.

2024“Under the plain-error doctrine, we can recognize obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant on appeal, and which affects a defendant’s ‘fundamental, substantive right.’” Smith v. State, 986 So. 2d 290, 294 (Miss. 2008) (quoting Debrow v. State, 972 So. 2d 550, 553 (Miss. 2007)).

2024Ed. 2d 616 9 (1981)); “Under the plain-error doctrine, we can recognize obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant on appeal, and which affects a defendant’s ‘fundamental, substantive right.’” (citing Debrow v. State, 972 So. 2d 550, 553-54 (Miss. 2007))). a.

2024The plain error doctrine provides appellate courts the ability to remedy “legal errors” when a violation caused a “manifest miscarriage of justice” or the violation “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Brown v. State, 178 So. 17 3d 1234, 1264 (¶58) (Miss. 2015) (citing Flora v. State, 925 So. 2d 797, 811 (Miss. 2006)); Giles, 282 So. 3d at 525 (¶15) (citing Starr v. State, 997 So. 2d 262, 266 (¶12) (Miss.

2022“The plain-error doctrine requires a party to prove that an error occurred which ‘resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” Id.

2018In Walker v. State , 913 So.2d 198 (Miss. 2005), the capital murder defendant argued that "[a]lthough no objection was raised during the argument, under th[e] Court's heightened level of scrutiny of death penalty cases, they will be reviewed." Id. at 238 (¶ 147) (noting that we have relaxed the contemporaneous objection rule and applied the plain error rule, which allows an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did occur and the substantive rights of the accused were violated).

2018In Walker v. State , 913 So.2d 198 (Miss. 2005), the capital murder defendant argued that "[a]lthough no objection was raised during the argument, under th[e] Court's heightened level of scrutiny of death penalty cases, they will be reviewed." Id. at 238 (¶ 147) (noting that we have relaxed the contemporaneous objection rule and applied the plain error rule, which allows an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did occur and the substantive rights of the accused were violated).

2025“Under the plain-error standard of review, we consider: (1) whether there was an error; (2) that adversely affected a defendant’s substantive rights, causing a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Johnson v. State, 290 So. 3d 1232 , 1240 (Miss. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rodgers v. State, 166 So. 3d 537, 544 (Miss.

2025“For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rodgers, 166 So. 3d at 544 ).