plain error in Nevada

2025"When an error has not been preserved, this court employs plain- error review." Valdez, 124 Nev. at 1190 , 196 P.3d at 477 .

2025"When an error has not been preserved, this court employs plain- error review." Valdez, 124 Nev. at 1190 , 196 P.3d at 477 .

2026"Plain error affects a defendant's substantial rights when it causes actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice . . . ." Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46 , 51, 412 P.3d 43 , SUPREME COURT 49 (2018) (citation modified).

2022And it is clear that Plumlee and Molen did not satisfy the third prong of the plain-error analysis—that SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A adjitto any error based on Scheible's dual service affected their substantial rights.2 "Under Nevada law, a plain error affects a defendant's substantial rights when it causes actual prejudice or a miscarriage of justice (defined as a grossly unfair outcome)." Id. at 50-51 , 412 P.3d at 49 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019"We [typically] review a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion," but "failure to object precludes appellate review of the matter unless it rises to the level of plain error." Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 267 , 182 P.3d 106, 109 (2008) (internal quotations omitted).

2019"We [typically] review a district court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion," but "failure to object precludes appellate review of the matter unless it rises to the level of plain error." Mclellan v. State, 124 Nev. 263, 267 , 182 P.3d 106, 109 (2008) (internal quotations omitted).

2015The district court further determined that, although an evidentiary ruling normally would not be significant enough to rise to the level of plain error, in this case, the error substantially affected the State's rights because the error prevented the ...continued 233 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2010); Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 682 , 691 P.2d 865, 870 (1984), where, as here, the issue was not raised below and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal and does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we decline to do so, see Diaz v. State, 118 Nev. 451 , 453 n.2, 50 P.3d 166 , 167 n.2 (2002)

2015The district court further determined that, although an evidentiary ruling normally would not be significant enough to rise to the level of plain error, in this case, the error substantially affected the State's rights because the error prevented the ...continued 233 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2010); Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 682, 691 P.2d 865, 870 (1984), where, as here, the issue was not raised below and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal and does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we decline to do so, see Diaz v. State, 118 Nev. 451, 453 n.2, 50 P.3d 166, 167 n.2 (2002) (st

2015The district court further determined that, although an evidentiary ruling normally would not be significant enough to rise to the level of plain error, in this case, the error substantially affected the State's rights because the error prevented the ...continued 233 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2010); Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 682, 691 P.2d 865, 870 (1984), where, as here, the issue was not raised below and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal and does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we decline to do so, see Diaz v. State, 118 Nev. 451, 453 n.2, 50 P.3d 166, 167 n.2 (2002) (st

2015The district court further determined that, although an evidentiary ruling normally would not be significant enough to rise to the level of plain error, in this case, the error substantially affected the State's rights because the error prevented the ...continued 233 P.3d 357, 359-60 (2010); Bates v. Chronister, 100 Nev. 675, 682, 691 P.2d 865, 870 (1984), where, as here, the issue was not raised below and was therefore not properly preserved for appeal and does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we decline to do so, see Diaz v. State, 118 Nev. 451, 453 n.2, 50 P.3d 166, 167 n.2 (2002) (st

2018Plain error review considers "whether there was error, whether the error was plain or clear, and whether the error affected the defendant's substantial rights." Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). "[R]eversal for plain error is only warranted if the error is readily apparent and the appellant demonstrates that the error was Trias-Quintana was 17 years old at the time of his offense.

2018Plain error review considers "whether there was error, whether the error was plain or clear, and whether the error affected the defendant's substantial rights." Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545 , 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (internal quotations omitted). "[R]eversal for plain error is only warranted if the error is readily apparent and the appellant demonstrates that the error was Trias-Quintana was 17 years old at the time of his offense.

2015Thus, in this case, because no objection was lodged at trial, a new trial would only be warranted if Pentair committed misconduct and the misconduct amounted to "plain error." COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA 15 (0) 19475 aen, Plain error requires a party to show 'that no other reasonable explanation for the verdict exists." Id. (quoting Ringle v. Bruton, 120 Nev. 82, 96 , 86 P.3d 1032, 1041 (2004)) Analyzing whether such plain error has occurred involves weighing the misconduct against the reasonableness of the jury's verdict in light of the evidence in the record.

2011Plain error in this context exists “only when the misconduct amounted to ‘irreparable and fundamental error . . . that results in a substantial impairment of justice or denial of fundamental rights such that, but for the misconduct, the verdict would have been different.’” Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, 125 Nev. 349, 364 , 212 P.3d 1068, 1079 (2009) (quoting Lioce, 124 Nev. at 19 , 174 P.3d at 982 ).

2018"In conducting a plain-error analysis, we must consider whether error exists, if the error was plain or clear, and if the error affected the defendant's substantial rights." Id. at 1184 , 147 P.3d at 1101 .

2018"In conducting a plain-error analysis, we must consider whether error exists, if the error was plain or clear, and if the error affected the defendant's substantial rights." Id. at 1184 , 147 P.3d at 1101 .

2018In considering whether error exists, "[i]t is well established that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial." Olivares v. State, 124 Nev. 1142 , 1147, 195 P.3d 864 , 868 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2018In considering whether error exists, "[i]t is well established that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the criminal prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial." Olivares v. State, 124 Nev. 1142 , 1147, 195 P.3d 864 , 868 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2022Court, 127 Nev. 927, 932 , 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (quoting Steward v. McDonald, 958 S.W.2d 297, 300 (Ark. 1.997)).

2022Court, 127 Nev. 927, 932 , 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (quoting Steward v. McDonald, 958 S.W.2d 297, 300 (Ark. 1.997)).

2022See Olano, 507 U.S. at 743-44 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing the example of racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury and explaining that laJt least some defects bearing on the jury's deliberative function are subject to reversal regardless of whether prejudice can be shown, not only because it is so difficult to measure their effects on a jury's decision, but also because such defects `undermin[e] the structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itselr) (second alteration in original) (quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263-64 (1986)).

2022See Olano, 507 U.S. at 743-44 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing the example of racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury and explaining that laJt least some defects bearing on the jury's deliberative function are subject to reversal regardless of whether prejudice can be shown, not only because it is so difficult to measure their effects on a jury's decision, but also because such defects `undermin[e] the structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itselr) (second alteration in original) (quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263-64 (1986)).

2022Court, 127 Nev. 927, 932 , 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (quoting Steward v. McDonald, 958 S.W.2d 297, 300 (Ark. 1.997)).

2022Court, 127 Nev. 927, 932 , 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (quoting Steward v. McDonald, 958 S.W.2d 297, 300 (Ark. 1.997)).

2022See Olano, 507 U.S. at 743-44 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing the example of racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury and explaining that laJt least some defects bearing on the jury's deliberative function are subject to reversal regardless of whether prejudice can be shown, not only because it is so difficult to measure their effects on a jury's decision, but also because such defects `undermin[e] the structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itselr) (second alteration in original) (quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263-64 (1986)).

2022See Olano, 507 U.S. at 743-44 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing the example of racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury and explaining that laJt least some defects bearing on the jury's deliberative function are subject to reversal regardless of whether prejudice can be shown, not only because it is so difficult to measure their effects on a jury's decision, but also because such defects `undermin[e] the structural integrity of the criminal tribunal itselr) (second alteration in original) (quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263-64 (1986)).

2019Id. at 622, 960 P.2d at 338 ; see also NRS 178.602 ("Plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.").

2019Id. at 622, 960 P.2d at 338 ; see also NRS 178.602 ("Plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.").

2019While we have acknowledged that "failure to object precludes appellate review . . . unless it rises to the level of plain error," Baltazar-Monterrosa v. State, 122 Nev. 606, 614 , 137 P.3d 1137, 1142 (2006) (internal quotations omitted), Hamrick made objections and thereby preserved these issues for appeal.

2019While we have acknowledged that "failure to object precludes appellate review . . . unless it rises to the level of plain error," Baltazar-Monterrosa v. State, 122 Nev. 606, 614 , 137 P.3d 1137, 1142 (2006) (internal quotations omitted), Hamrick made objections and thereby preserved these issues for appeal.

2017See Hedland, 116 Nev. at 135, 994 P.2d at 697.

2017See Hedland, 116 Nev. at 135, 994 P.2d at 697 .

2017SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I 947A a, 8 district court from affording him relief on appeal under the plain error rule. 4 See Maestas v. State, 128 Nev. 124, 146, 275 P.3d 74, 89 (2012) (explaining that because defendant did not raise the issue in trial court, the record was not sufficiently developed to allow appellate court to determine that any error was "plain" and therefore the issue was not amenable to review under the plain error rule).

2017SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I 947A a, 8 district court from affording him relief on appeal under the plain error rule. 4 See Maestas v. State, 128 Nev. 124, 146, 275 P.3d 74, 89 (2012) (explaining that because defendant did not raise the issue in trial court, the record was not sufficiently developed to allow appellate court to determine that any error was "plain" and therefore the issue was not amenable to review under the plain error rule).

2016Op. 29, 321 P.3d 919 , 926 (2014); see also United States v. Davenport, 519 F.3d 940, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that "because the prohibition against double jeopardy is a cornerstone of our system of constitutional criminal procedure" reviewing under a plain error standard is appropriate).

2014SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 0) 1947A e "Although failure to object at trial generally precludes appellate review, this court has the discretion to review constitutional or plain error." Somee v. State, 124 Nev. 434, 443, 187 P.3d 152, 159 (2008); see also United States v. Davenport, 519 F.3d 940, 943 (9th Cir. 2008) (reviewing unobjected-to double jeopardy claims under a plain error standard).

2015Plain error requires that "an error must be so unmistakable that it is apparent from a casual inspection of the record." Garner v. State, 116 Nev. 770 , 783, 6 P.3d 1013, 1022 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Sharma v. State, 118 Nev. 648 , 56 P.3d 868 (2002), and by Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272 , 198 P.3d 839 (2008).

2015Plain error requires that "an error must be so unmistakable that it is apparent from a casual inspection of the record." Garner v. State, 116 Nev. 770, 783, 6 P.3d 1013, 1022 (2000), overruled on other grounds by Sharma v. State, 118 Nev. 648, 56 P.3d 868 (2002), and by Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 198 P.3d 839 (2008).

1985Citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 1592 n. 14, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. ___ , 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1047 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), declared 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.'" Moreover, the Young court said that "[r]eviewing courts are not to use the plain error doctrine to consider trial court errors not meriting appellate review absent timely objection — a pr

1985Citing United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 1592 n. 14, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Young, 470 U.S. ___ , 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1047 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), declared 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.'" Moreover, the Young court said that "[r]eviewing courts are not to use the plain error doctrine to consider trial court errors not meriting appellate review absent timely objection — a pr

1998"Failure to object below generally precludes review by this court . . . ." Sterling v. State, 108 Nev. 391, 394 , 834 P.2d 400, 402 (1992).

1998"Failure to object below generally precludes review by this court . . . ." Sterling v. State, 108 Nev. 391, 394 , 834 P.2d 400, 402 (1992).

2016Valdez, 124 Nev. at 1190 , 196 P.3d at 477 (holding that reversal is not warranted under the plain-error standard unless the error affects the 16Although Quisano raised a general objection that the State violated discovery rules, he did not use the precise words "the State violated its open-file policy," and the district court did not rule on that issue.

2016Valdez, 124 Nev. at 1190 , 196 P.3d at 477 (holding that reversal is not warranted under the plain-error standard unless the error affects the 16Although Quisano raised a general objection that the State violated discovery rules, he did not use the precise words "the State violated its open-file policy," and the district court did not rule on that issue.

2020See NRS 178.602 (plain error rule); see also Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46 , 50, 412 P.3d 43, 48 (2018) (a plain error must be "clear under current law from a casual inspection of the record"), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 415 (2018).

2020Jeremias v. State, 134 Nev. 46, 52, 412 P.3d 43, 49, cert. denied, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 415 (2018).

2019Id. at 622, 960 P.2d at 338 ; see also NRS 178.602 ("Plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.").

2019Id. at 622, 960 P.2d at 338 ; see also NRS 178.602 ("Plain error or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.").

2011Plain error in this context exists “only when the misconduct amounted to ‘irreparable and fundamental error . . . that results in a substantial impairment of justice or denial of fundamental rights such that, but for the misconduct, the verdict would have been different.’” Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, 125 Nev. 349, 364 , 212 P.3d 1068, 1079 (2009) (quoting Lioce, 124 Nev. at 19 , 174 P.3d at 982 ).

2011Plain error in this context exists “only when the misconduct amounted to ‘irreparable and fundamental error . . . that results in a substantial impairment of justice or denial of fundamental rights such that, but for the misconduct, the verdict would have been different.’” Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, 125 Nev. 349, 364 , 212 P.3d 1068, 1079 (2009) (quoting Lioce, 124 Nev. at 19 , 174 P.3d at 982 ).