plain error in Alabama

475 Alabama opinions name it 4 courts 1852–2026 24 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 (56)

Case	Followed	Cited
Hyde v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1998 · cited in 102 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2026 2 sentences 2026Plain 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). '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.' Hyde v. State, 778 So. 2d 199, 209 (Ala. Crim. 2026Plain 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). '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.' Hyde v. State, 778 So. 2d 199, 209 (Ala. Crim.	83	102
Ex Parte Womackgreen ala · 1983 · cited in 80 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1988–2017 2 sentences 2016In discussing the scope of the plain-error standard, the Alabama Supreme Court has stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Plain error’ arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity .of the judicial proceedings.” ’ Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766, 769 (Ala.1983) (quoting United States v, Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148, 1152 (5th Cir.1981)). 2016In discussing the scope of the plain-error standard, the Alabama Supreme Court has stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Plain error’ arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity .of the judicial proceedings.” ’ Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766, 769 (Ala.1983) (quoting United States v, Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148, 1152 (5th Cir.1981)).	50	80
United States v. William Timothy Chaney, A/K/A \James Kirkgreen · 1981 · cited in 73 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1983–2017 2 sentences 2016In discussing the scope of the plain-error standard, the Alabama Supreme Court has stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Plain error’ arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity .of the judicial proceedings.” ’ Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766, 769 (Ala.1983) (quoting United States v, Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148, 1152 (5th Cir.1981)). 2016In discussing the scope of the plain-error standard, the Alabama Supreme Court has stated: “ ‘ “ ‘Plain error’ arises only if the error is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity .of the judicial proceedings.” ’ Ex parte Womack, 435 So.2d 766, 769 (Ala.1983) (quoting United States v, Chaney, 662 F.2d 1148, 1152 (5th Cir.1981)).	50	73
Hall v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1999 · cited in 69 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2018 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.	50	69
Johnson v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1992 · cited in 55 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1994–2026 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 Su preme 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 act 1360, 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d	49	55
United States v. Fradygreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 120 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1983–2018 2 sentences 2018In 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." United States v. Frady , 456 U.S., at 163 , n.14 .' " See also Ex parte Hodges , 856 So.2d 936 , 947-48 (Ala. 2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would 'seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,' and that the plain-error doctrine is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would oth 2018In 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." United States v. Frady , 456 U.S., at 163 , n.14 .' " See also Ex parte Hodges , 856 So.2d 936 , 947-48 (Ala. 2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would 'seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,' and that the plain-error doctrine is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would oth	44	120
Burton v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1993 · cited in 51 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1998–2018 2 sentences 2011Further, “ ‘ “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.”” Whitehead v. State, [ 777 So.2d 781 ], at 794, [(Ala.Crim.App.1999) ], quoting Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Crim. 2005P., 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.' "This court has recognized that `"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 res	37	51
Ex Parte Walkergreen ala · 2007 · cited in 41 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2008–2026 2 sentences 2017To rise to the level of plain error, the alleged error must be a "particularly egregious error[ ]," Frady , 456 U.S. at 163 , 102 S.Ct. 1584 , and it "must be obvious on the face of the record," Ex parte Walker , 972 So.2d 737 , 753 (Ala. 2007). 2016“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.” Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 199, 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), aff'd, 778 So.2d 237 (Ala.2000). “‘The plain error standard applies only where a particularly egregious error occurred at trial and that error has or probably has substantially prejudiced the defendant.’” Ex parte Walker, 972 So.2d 737, 742 (Ala.2007) (quoting Ex parte Trawick, 698 So.2d 162, 167 (Ala.1997)).	36	41
Williams v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1996 · cited in 41 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1997–2025 2 sentences 2018App. 1999), aff'd, 779 So.2d 1283 (Ala. 2000)." "In setting forth the standard for plain error review of jury instructions, the court in United States v. Chandler , 996 F.2d 1073 , 1085, 1097 (11th Cir. 1993), cited Boyde v. California , 494 U.S. 370 , 110 S.Ct. 1190 , 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990), for the proposition that 'an error occurs only when there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in an improper manner.' " Williams v. State , 710 So.2d 1276 , 1306 (Ala. Crim. 2018App. 1999), aff'd, 779 So.2d 1283 (Ala. 2000)." "In setting forth the standard for plain error review of jury instructions, the court in United States v. Chandler , 996 F.2d 1073 , 1085, 1097 (11th Cir. 1993), cited Boyde v. California , 494 U.S. 370 , 110 S.Ct. 1190 , 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990), for the proposition that 'an error occurs only when there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction in an improper manner.' " Williams v. State , 710 So.2d 1276 , 1306 (Ala. Crim.	34	41
Ex Parte Bryantgreen ala · 2002 · cited in 41 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2018	32	41
Ex Parte Bankheadgreen ala · 1991 · cited in 37 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1991–2024	31	37
United States v. Younggreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 194 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1987–2026 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.	25	194
United States v. David Ronald Chandler, A/K/A Ronnie Chandlergreen ca11 · 1993 · cited in 30 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1996–2018	23	30
Ex Parte Trawickgreen ala · 1997 · cited in 28 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1997–2026	23	28
Ex Parte Browngreen ala · 2008 · cited in 46 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2018 2 sentences 2018App. P., 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." (Emphasis added.) In Ex parte Brown , 11 So.3d 933 (Ala. 2008), the Alabama Supreme Court explained: 1081 " ' "To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defen 2018*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." United States v. Frady , 456 U.S., at 163 , n.14 .' " See also Ex parte Hodges , 856 So.2d 936 , 947-48 (Ala. 2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would 'seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,' and that the plain-error doctrine is to be 'used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would oth	22	46
United States v. Joe B. Butler, David R. Holmes, Donnie Waitesgreen ca11 · 1986 · cited in 25 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1990–2013	20	25
Kuenzel v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1990 · cited in 35 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1991–2015	19	35
Ex Parte Hodgesgreen ala · 2003 · cited in 27 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2004–2018	19	27
Pilley v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1998 · cited in 21 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2016	18	21
Dill v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1991 · cited in 21 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1992–2010	18	21
Ferguson v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2008 · cited in 22 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2009–2024	17	22
Ex Parte Dillgreen ala · 1992 · cited in 21 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1995–2010	16	21
Broadnax v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2000 · cited in 20 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2003–2017	16	20
Ex Parte Landgreen ala · 1996 · cited in 20 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1998–2016	16	20
Wilson v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2010 · cited in 20 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2013–2026	15	20
Ex Parte Woodallgreen ala · 1998 · cited in 19 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2016	15	19
Kesner v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1993 · cited in 16 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1995–2010	13	16
Tran Van Khiem v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1993 · cited in 16 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1995–2010	13	16
Hill v. North Carolinagreen scotus · 1993 · cited in 16 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1995–2010	13	16
Ex Parte Watkinsgreen ala · 1987 · cited in 22 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1988–2007	12	22
Biddie v. Stategreen ala · 1987 · cited in 13 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1989–2010	12	13
Biddie v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 1987 · cited in 12 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1990–2010	12	12
Price v. State.green ala · 1998 · cited in 77 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. 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.	11	77
Ex Parte Hydegreen ala · 2000 · cited in 59 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2000–2026 2 sentences 2026App. 1998), aff'd, 778 So. 2d 237 (Ala. 2000). 'The plain error standard applies only where a particularly egregious error occurred at trial and that error has or probably has substantially prejudiced the defendant.' Ex parte Trawick, 698 So. 2d at 167 . '[P]lain error must be obvious on the face of the record. 2026App. 1998), aff'd, 778 So. 2d 237 (Ala. 2000). 'The plain error standard applies only where a particularly egregious error occurred at trial and that error has or 9 CR-2024-0290 probably has substantially prejudiced the defendant.' Ex parte Trawick, 698 So. 2d at 167 . '[P]lain error must be obvious on the face of the record.	11	59
Ex Parte Dobynegreen ala · 2001 · cited in 24 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2002–2026	11	24
Lejeune v. Texasgreen scotus · 2001 · cited in 22 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2001–2016	11	22
Keen v. Tennesseegreen scotus · 2001 · cited in 21 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2001–2016	10	21
Ex Parte Harrellred ala · 1985 · cited in 18 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 1988–2005	10	18
James v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2010 · cited in 12 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2012–2026	10	12
Snyder v. Stategreen alacrimapp · 2003 · cited in 12 Alabama opinions naming this issue, 2005–2025	10	12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (24)

Case	Cited	Years
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.	62	1999–2018
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.	61	1999–2018
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.	61	1999–2018
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 Su preme 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 act 1360, 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d	55	1999–2026
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.	55	1999–2026
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 Su preme 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 act 1360, 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d	54	1994–2015
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 Su preme 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 act 1360, 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d	54	1994–2015
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 Su preme 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 act 1360, 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d	52	1994–2015
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 Su preme 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 act 1360, 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d	52	1994–2015
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 Su preme 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 act 1360, 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d	51	1999–2015
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 Su preme 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 act 1360, 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d	51	1999–2015
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. 2012As 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.	50	1999–2015
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 Su preme 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 act 1360, 143 L.Ed.2d 521 (1999); Johnson v. State, 620 So.2d	49	1999–2015
Ex Parte Burton green ala · 1994 2 sentences 2005P., 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.' "This court has recognized that `"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 res 2003This Court has recognized that "`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."'" Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), aff'd, 651 So.2d 659 (Ala.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1115 , 115 S.Ct. 1973 , 131 L.Ed.2d 862 (1995), 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 , 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982).	45	1998–2011
Maes v. Thomas green scotus · 1995	32	1998–2011
Scott v. Kernan green scotus · 1995	28	1998–2011
Ex Parte Hall green ala · 2001	25	2003–2014
Clissuras v. City of New York green scotus · 1986	24	1990–2013
Roberts v. Wainwright green scotus · 1986	23	1990–2013
Hockersmith v. Partner Publishing Co. green scotus · 1986	22	1990–2013
Charlie Benson Bowen v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center green ca11 · 1985	12	1991–2013
Hardin v. McMaster green scotus · 1987	12	1991–2013
Standley v. United States Tax Court green scotus · 1987	12	1991–2013
Marquez v. Texas green scotus · 1987	12	1991–2013

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-40 (288) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-49 (208) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 (188) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-51 (167) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-47 (162) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-45 (137) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-52 (110) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-46 (89) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-6-2 (63) AL § Ala. Code § 13A-5-50 (57) AL § Ala. Code § 12-16-150 (42) AL § Ala. Code § 15-12-21 (41)

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

OH 5287 (1834–2026) IL 5007 (1872–2026) MI 2310 (1885–2026) MO 1849 (1900–2025) NC 1245 (1879–2026) CT 1032 (1859–2026) NJ 794 (1913–2026) CO 714 (1908–2026) OR 670 (1860–2026) TN 654 (1982–2026) GA 556 (1912–2026) MS 519 (1858–2026) MN 496 (1937–2026) UT 480 (1936–2026) AL 475 (1852–2026) WY 474 (1896–2026) NE 427 (1899–2026) DC 341 (1968–2026) MT 261 (1927–2026) HI 251 (1923–2026) VT 219 (1978–2026) WV 211 (1898–2026) DE 202 (1925–2026) AK 156 (1971–2026) OK 140 (1911–2025) SD 133 (1890–2026) NM 132 (1925–2026) MD 126 (1880–2026) NH 124 (1885–2025) WI 121 (1872–2026) NV 85 (1985–2026) PA 66 (1861–2026) TX 65 (1889–2025) VI 60 (2007–2025) IA 60 (1880–2025) WA 60 (1897–2026) ND 44 (1907–2026) NY 39 (1848–2025) KS 37 (1889–2026) CA 34 (1876–2026) SC 29 (1986–2026) AR 28 (1928–2026) LA 23 (1936–2016) ID 19 (1914–2025) FL 18 (1930–2016) VA 17 (1872–2025) IN 15 (1871–2006) ME 14 (1830–2025) GU 13 (2021–2025) MA 10 (1869–2024) RI 10 (1911–2013) KY 9 (1928–2023) AZ 7 (1932–2009)

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