Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Erickstadgreen2 sentences2024“When a defendant fails to object to a proposed instruction properly, or fails to specifically request an instruction or object to the omission of an instruction, the issue is not adequately preserved for appellate review and our inquiry is limited under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) to whether the jury instructions constitute obvious error affecting substantial rights.” Hartson, at ¶ 20; see also State v. Erickstad, 2000 ND 202, ¶ 18 , 620 N.W.2d 136 . [¶6] Watts did not propose an instruction defining “family or household member.” He also failed to object to the district court’s proposed instruction d 2024“When a defendant fails to object to a proposed instruction properly, or fails to specifically request an instruction or object to the omission of an instruction, the issue is not adequately preserved for appellate review and our inquiry is limited under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) to whether the jury instructions constitute obvious error affecting substantial rights.” Hartson, at ¶ 20; see also State v. Erickstad, 2000 ND 202, ¶ 18 , 620 N.W.2d 136 . [¶6] Watts did not propose an instruction defining “family or household member.” He also failed to object to the district court’s proposed instruction d | 4 | 5 |
State v. Olandergreen2 sentences2024He requests we review the instruction for obvious error. [¶7] “Obvious error review consists of determining whether (1) there was an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected a party’s substantial rights.” State v. Gaddie, 2022 ND 44, ¶ 4 , 971 N.W.2d 811 ; see also State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 14 , 575 N.W.2d 658 . 2024He requests we review the instruction for obvious error. [¶7] “Obvious error review consists of determining whether (1) there was an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected a party’s substantial rights.” State v. Gaddie, 2022 ND 44, ¶ 4 , 971 N.W.2d 811 ; see also State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 14 , 575 N.W.2d 658 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Kraftgreen1 sentence2001State v. Glass, 2000 ND 212, ¶ 19 , 620 N.W.2d 146 ; Enckstad, at ¶ 18. [¶ 11] The Explanatory Note to N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) observes the rule “applies to both the trial courts and the appellate courts.” See also State v. Kraft, 413 N.W.2d 303, 307 (N.D.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gaddie
green
2 sentences2024He requests we review the instruction for obvious error. [¶7] “Obvious error review consists of determining whether (1) there was an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected a party’s substantial rights.” State v. Gaddie, 2022 ND 44, ¶ 4 , 971 N.W.2d 811 ; see also State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 14 , 575 N.W.2d 658 . 2024He requests we review the instruction for obvious error. [¶7] “Obvious error review consists of determining whether (1) there was an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected a party’s substantial rights.” State v. Gaddie, 2022 ND 44, ¶ 4 , 971 N.W.2d 811 ; see also State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 14 , 575 N.W.2d 658 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Jacob
green
2 sentences2023“A party who objects to an instruction . . . must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds.” N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(c)(1). 5 [¶19] “When a defendant fails to properly object to a proposed instruction . . . the issue is not adequately preserved for appellate review and our inquiry is limited . . . as to whether the jury instructions constitute obvious error affecting substantial rights.” Jacob, 2006 ND 246, ¶ 14 . 2023“A party who objects to an instruction . . . must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds.” N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(c)(1). 5 Filed by Clerk of Supreme Court 03/16/2023 [¶19] “When a defendant fails to properly object to a proposed instruction . . . the issue is not adequately preserved for appellate review and our inquiry is limited . . . as to whether the jury instructions constitute obvious error affecting substantial rights.” Jacob, 2006 ND 246, ¶ 14 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2002State v. Miller, 2001 ND 132, ¶ 24 , 631 N.W.2d 587 ; Erickstad , at ¶ 18. [¶ 17] Rule 52(b), N.D.R.Crim. 2002State v. Miller, 2001 ND 132, ¶ 24 , 631 N.W.2d 587 ; Erickstad , at ¶ 18. [¶ 17] Rule 52(b), N.D.R.Crim. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2025“Failing to instruct the jury on all of the essential elements of an offense is a plain error.” Smith, 2023 ND 6, ¶ 16 . [¶8] North Dakota has legislatively defined the term “element of an offense” to mean: a. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Glass
green
2 sentences2001State v. Glass, 2000 ND 212, ¶ 19 , 620 N.W.2d 146 ; Enckstad, at ¶ 18. [¶ 11] The Explanatory Note to N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) observes the rule “applies to both the trial courts and the appellate courts.” See also State v. Kraft, 413 N.W.2d 303, 307 (N.D.1987). 2001State v. Glass, 2000 ND 212, ¶ 19 , 620 N.W.2d 146 ; Enckstad, at ¶ 18. [¶ 11] The Explanatory Note to N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) observes the rule “applies to both the trial courts and the appellate courts.” See also State v. Kraft, 413 N.W.2d 303, 307 (N.D.1987). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Mathre
neutral
2 sentences2000Mathre, 1999 ND 224, ¶ 5 , 603 N.W.2d 173 ; Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 11 , 575 N.W.2d 658 ; Barnes, 551 N.W.2d at 281-82 . [¶ 19] The defendants did not specifically object to the voluntary intoxication instructions, either at the time the State requested the instruction or during the charging conference. 2000Mathre, 1999 ND 224, ¶ 5 , 603 N.W.2d 173 ; Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 11 , 575 N.W.2d 658 ; Barnes, 551 N.W.2d at 281-82 . [¶ 19] The defendants did not specifically object to the voluntary intoxication instructions, either at the time the State requested the instruction or during the charging conference. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence2000Mathre, 1999 ND 224, ¶ 5 , 603 N.W.2d 173 ; Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 11 , 575 N.W.2d 658 ; Barnes, 551 N.W.2d at 281-82 . [¶ 19] The defendants did not specifically object to the voluntary intoxication instructions, either at the time the State requested the instruction or during the charging conference. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.