defendant raises the plain error (Montana) · Go Syfert
← Montana issues

defendant raises the plain error in Montana

11 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2023 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Montana 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Finleygreen
mont · 1996 · cited in 1 Montana opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023We exercise plain error review when a failure to do so may result in a “manifest miscarriage of justice, [] leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1995). ¶11 The State alleged in the charging documents that the crime occurred in Gallatin County, Montana.

2023We exercise plain error review when a failure to do so may result in a “manifest miscarriage of justice, [] leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1995). ¶11 The State alleged in the charging documents that the crime occurred in Gallatin County, Montana.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Gray green
mont · 2004
2 sentences

2023“When a defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review regarding issues that were not objected to at the district court level, our review is discretionary.” State v. Gray, 2004 MT 347, ¶ 13 , 324 Mont. 334 , 102 P.3d 1255 .

2023“When a defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review regarding issues that were not objected to at the district court level, our review is discretionary.” State v. Gray, 2004 MT 347, ¶ 13 , 324 Mont. 334 , 102 P.3d 1255 .

42005–2023
State v. Daniels green
mont · 2003
2 sentences

2017State v. Daniels, 2003 MT 247, ¶ 20 , 317 Mont. 331 , 77 P.3d 224 .

2017State v. Daniels, 2003 MT 247, ¶ 20 , 317 Mont. 331 , 77 P.3d 224 .

42004–2017
State v. M. Stutzman green
mont · 2017
2 sentences

2017Wolf Black appeals the conviction. ¶6 When a defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review of issues that the defendant did not raise before the district court, our review is discretionary, State v. Stutzman, 2017 MT 169, ¶ 13 , 388 Mont. 133 , 398 P.3d 265 (internal citations omitted), and such review is “applied sparingly on a case-by-case basis,” State v. Walton, 2014 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 374 Mont. 38 , 318 P.3d 1024 ; State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 23 , 381 Mont. 472 , 362 P.3d 1126 . 3 ¶7 Wolf Black argues the prosecutor committed multiple errors during closing argument, includ

2017Wolf Black appeals the conviction. ¶6 When a defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review of issues that the defendant did not raise before the district court, our review is discretionary, State v. Stutzman, 2017 MT 169, ¶ 13 , 388 Mont. 133 , 398 P.3d 265 (internal citations omitted), and such review is “applied sparingly on a case-by-case basis,” State v. Walton, 2014 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 374 Mont. 38 , 318 P.3d 1024 ; State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 23 , 381 Mont. 472 , 362 P.3d 1126 . 3 ¶7 Wolf Black argues the prosecutor committed multiple errors during closing argument, includ

32017–2017
State v. Favel green
mont · 2015
2 sentences

2017Wolf Black appeals the conviction. ¶6 When a defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review of issues that the defendant did not raise before the district court, our review is discretionary, State v. Stutzman, 2017 MT 169, ¶ 13 , 388 Mont. 133 , 398 P.3d 265 (internal citations omitted), and such review is “applied sparingly on a case-by-case basis,” State v. Walton, 2014 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 374 Mont. 38 , 318 P.3d 1024 ; State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 23 , 381 Mont. 472 , 362 P.3d 1126 . 3 ¶7 Wolf Black argues the prosecutor committed multiple errors during closing argument, includ

2017Wolf Black appeals the conviction. ¶6 When a defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review of issues that the defendant did not raise before the district court, our review is discretionary, State v. Stutzman, 2017 MT 169, ¶ 13 , 388 Mont. 133 , 398 P.3d 265 (internal citations omitted), and such review is “applied sparingly on a case-by-case basis,” State v. Walton, 2014 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 374 Mont. 38 , 318 P.3d 1024 ; State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 23 , 381 Mont. 472 , 362 P.3d 1126 . 3 ¶7 Wolf Black argues the prosecutor committed multiple errors during closing argument, includ

12017–2017
State v. David Walton green
mont · 2014
2 sentences

2017Wolf Black appeals the conviction. ¶6 When a defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review of issues that the defendant did not raise before the district court, our review is discretionary, State v. Stutzman, 2017 MT 169, ¶ 13 , 388 Mont. 133 , 398 P.3d 265 (internal citations omitted), and such review is “applied sparingly on a case-by-case basis,” State v. Walton, 2014 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 374 Mont. 38 , 318 P.3d 1024 ; State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 23 , 381 Mont. 472 , 362 P.3d 1126 . 3 ¶7 Wolf Black argues the prosecutor committed multiple errors during closing argument, includ

2017Wolf Black appeals the conviction. ¶6 When a defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review of issues that the defendant did not raise before the district court, our review is discretionary, State v. Stutzman, 2017 MT 169, ¶ 13 , 388 Mont. 133 , 398 P.3d 265 (internal citations omitted), and such review is “applied sparingly on a case-by-case basis,” State v. Walton, 2014 MT 41, ¶ 10 , 374 Mont. 38 , 318 P.3d 1024 ; State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 23 , 381 Mont. 472 , 362 P.3d 1126 . 3 ¶7 Wolf Black argues the prosecutor committed multiple errors during closing argument, includ

12017–2017
State v. Strauss green
mont · 2003
2 sentences

2004State v. Strauss, 2003 MT 195, ¶ 47 , 317 Mont. 1, ¶ 47 , 74 P.3d 1052, ¶ 47 . ¶13 When a defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review regarding issues that were not objected to at the district court level, our review is discretionary.

2004State v. Strauss, 2003 MT 195, ¶ 47 , 317 Mont. 1, ¶ 47 , 74 P.3d 1052, ¶ 47 . ¶13 When a defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review regarding issues that were not objected to at the district court level, our review is discretionary.

12004–2004
State v. Earl green
mont · 2003
2 sentences

2003State v. Earl, 2003 MT 158, ¶ 25 , 316 Mont. 263, ¶ 25 , 71 P.3d 1201, ¶ 25 .

2003State v. Earl, 2003 MT 158, ¶ 25 , 316 Mont. 263, ¶ 25 , 71 P.3d 1201, ¶ 25 .

12003–2003

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check