forfeited plain error in North Dakota

2017Under that framework, if a defendant establishes a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, an appellate court has discretion to correct the error and should correct ft if it “ ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. at ¶ 16 (quoting Olano, 507 U.S., at 736 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ). [¶ 16] A plain or obvious error requires a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law.

2017Under that framework, if a defendant establishes a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, an appellate court has discretion to correct the error and should correct ft if it “ ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. at ¶ 16 (quoting Olano, 507 U.S., at 736 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 ). [¶ 16] A plain or obvious error requires a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law.

2023“When a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, ‘we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Coppage v. State, 2014 ND 42, ¶ 30 , 843 N.W.2d 291 (quoting State v. Chacano, 2013 ND 8, ¶ 9 , 826 N.W.2d 294 ).

2014When a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, “we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

2013If the defendant “establishes a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citations and quotation omitted). [¶10] To constitute obvious error, “[t]he error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law . . . .” Clark , 2012 ND 135, ¶ 26 , 818 N.W.2d 739 (citation omitted).

2013If the defendant “establishes a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citations and quotation omitted). [¶ 10] To constitute obvious error, “[t]he error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law....” Clark, 2012 ND 135, ¶ 26 , 818 N.W.2d 739 (citation omitted).

2013If the defendant “establishes a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citations and quotation omitted). [¶ 10] To constitute obvious error, “[t]he error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law....” Clark, 2012 ND 135, ¶ 26 , 818 N.W.2d 739 (citation omitted).

2013If the defendant “establishes a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citations and quotation omitted).

2013“If the trial error is one of constitutional magnitude, we must determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by considering the probable effect of the error in light of all the evidence.” State v. Bethke, 2009 ND 47, ¶ 25 , 763 N.W.2d 492 (citation omitted).

2013“If the trial error is one of constitutional magnitude, we must determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt by considering the probable effect of the error in light of all the evidence.” State v. Bethke, 2009 ND 47, ¶ 25 , 763 N.W.2d 492 (citation omitted).

2013If the defendant “establishes a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citations and quotation omitted). [¶10] To constitute obvious error, “[t]he error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law . . . .” Clark , 2012 ND 135, ¶ 26 , 818 N.W.2d 739 (citation omitted).

2013If the defendant “establishes a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citations and quotation omitted). [¶ 10] To constitute obvious error, “[t]he error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law....” Clark, 2012 ND 135, ¶ 26 , 818 N.W.2d 739 (citation omitted).

2007When “a defendant establishes that a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 16 , 575 N.W.2d 658 ). [¶ 16] At the trial court level, Kautz-man actively participated in the drafting of the verdict form and specifically requested that the inquiry regarding whether there was serious bodily injury be added in the order it was presented to the jury.

2007When “a defendant establishes that a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 16 , 575 N.W.2d 658 ). [¶ 16] At the trial court level, Kautz-man actively participated in the drafting of the verdict form and specifically requested that the inquiry regarding whether there was serious bodily injury be added in the order it was presented to the jury.

2023“When a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, ‘we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Coppage v. State, 2014 ND 42, ¶ 30 , 843 N.W.2d 291 (quoting State v. Chacano, 2013 ND 8, ¶ 9 , 826 N.W.2d 294 ).

2023“When a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, ‘we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Coppage v. State, 2014 ND 42, ¶ 30 , 843 N.W.2d 291 (quoting State v. Chacano, 2013 ND 8, ¶ 9 , 826 N.W.2d 294 ).

2023“When a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, ‘we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Coppage v. State, 2014 ND 42, ¶ 30 , 843 N.W.2d 291 (quoting State v. Chacano, 2013 ND 8, ¶ 9 , 826 N.W.2d 294 ).

2019Id. at ¶ 16. [¶16] We have recognized a mistrial is an extreme remedy appropriate only when there is a fundamental defect or occurrence in the trial proceedings making it evident that further proceedings would produce a manifest injustice. *162 State v. Carlson , 2016 ND 130 , ¶ 11, 881 N.W.2d 649 .

2019Id. at ¶ 16. [¶16] We have recognized a mistrial is an extreme remedy appropriate only when there is a fundamental defect or occurrence in the trial proceedings making it evident that further proceedings would produce a manifest injustice. *162 State v. Carlson , 2016 ND 130 , ¶ 11, 881 N.W.2d 649 .

2017Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶¶ 12-13 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (corncluding admission of DNA test results, if erroneous, was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under- current law); State v. Desjarlais, 2008 ND 13, ¶ 10 , 744 N.W.2d 529 (concluding no obvious error when rule of law for charging multiple counts is not clearly established); State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶¶ 14-17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (concluding error, if. any, in admitting 911 tape as excited utterance was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under current law); State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 20 , 638 N.W.2d 30 (concluding ins

2017Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶¶ 12-13 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (corncluding admission of DNA test results, if erroneous, was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under- current law); State v. Desjarlais, 2008 ND 13, ¶ 10 , 744 N.W.2d 529 (concluding no obvious error when rule of law for charging multiple counts is not clearly established); State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶¶ 14-17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (concluding error, if. any, in admitting 911 tape as excited utterance was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under current law); State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 20 , 638 N.W.2d 30 (concluding ins

2017Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶¶ 12-13 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (corncluding admission of DNA test results, if erroneous, was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under- current law); State v. Desjarlais, 2008 ND 13, ¶ 10 , 744 N.W.2d 529 (concluding no obvious error when rule of law for charging multiple counts is not clearly established); State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶¶ 14-17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (concluding error, if. any, in admitting 911 tape as excited utterance was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under current law); State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 20 , 638 N.W.2d 30 (concluding ins

2017Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶¶ 12-13 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (corncluding admission of DNA test results, if erroneous, was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under- current law); State v. Desjarlais, 2008 ND 13, ¶ 10 , 744 N.W.2d 529 (concluding no obvious error when rule of law for charging multiple counts is not clearly established); State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶¶ 14-17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (concluding error, if. any, in admitting 911 tape as excited utterance was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under current law); State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 20 , 638 N.W.2d 30 (concluding ins

2017Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶¶ 12-13 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (corncluding admission of DNA test results, if erroneous, was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under- current law); State v. Desjarlais, 2008 ND 13, ¶ 10 , 744 N.W.2d 529 (concluding no obvious error when rule of law for charging multiple counts is not clearly established); State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶¶ 14-17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (concluding error, if. any, in admitting 911 tape as excited utterance was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under current law); State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 20 , 638 N.W.2d 30 (concluding ins

2017Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶¶ 12-13 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (corncluding admission of DNA test results, if erroneous, was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under- current law); State v. Desjarlais, 2008 ND 13, ¶ 10 , 744 N.W.2d 529 (concluding no obvious error when rule of law for charging multiple counts is not clearly established); State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶¶ 14-17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (concluding error, if. any, in admitting 911 tape as excited utterance was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under current law); State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 20 , 638 N.W.2d 30 (concluding ins

2017Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶¶ 12-13 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (corncluding admission of DNA test results, if erroneous, was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under- current law); State v. Desjarlais, 2008 ND 13, ¶ 10 , 744 N.W.2d 529 (concluding no obvious error when rule of law for charging multiple counts is not clearly established); State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶¶ 14-17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (concluding error, if. any, in admitting 911 tape as excited utterance was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under current law); State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 20 , 638 N.W.2d 30 (concluding ins

2017Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶¶ 12-13 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (corncluding admission of DNA test results, if erroneous, was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under- current law); State v. Desjarlais, 2008 ND 13, ¶ 10 , 744 N.W.2d 529 (concluding no obvious error when rule of law for charging multiple counts is not clearly established); State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶¶ 14-17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (concluding error, if. any, in admitting 911 tape as excited utterance was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under current law); State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 20 , 638 N.W.2d 30 (concluding ins

2017Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶¶ 12-13 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (corncluding admission of DNA test results, if erroneous, was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under- current law); State v. Desjarlais, 2008 ND 13, ¶ 10 , 744 N.W.2d 529 (concluding no obvious error when rule of law for charging multiple counts is not clearly established); State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶¶ 14-17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (concluding error, if. any, in admitting 911 tape as excited utterance was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under current law); State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 20 , 638 N.W.2d 30 (concluding ins

2017Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶¶ 12-13 , 823 N.W.2d 774 (corncluding admission of DNA test results, if erroneous, was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under- current law); State v. Desjarlais, 2008 ND 13, ¶ 10 , 744 N.W.2d 529 (concluding no obvious error when rule of law for charging multiple counts is not clearly established); State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176, ¶¶ 14-17 , 687 N.W.2d 237 (concluding error, if. any, in admitting 911 tape as excited utterance was not clear deviation from applicable legal rule under current law); State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 20 , 638 N.W.2d 30 (concluding ins

2007When “a defendant establishes that a forfeited plain error affects substantial rights, we have discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶ 16 , 575 N.W.2d 658 ). [¶ 16] At the trial court level, Kautz-man actively participated in the drafting of the verdict form and specifically requested that the inquiry regarding whether there was serious bodily injury be added in the order it was presented to the jury.

2004State v. Skorick, 2002 ND 190, ¶ 11 , 653 N.W.2d 698 ; Evans, 1999 ND 70, ¶ 11 , 593 N.W.2d 336 ; City of Williston v. Hegstad, 1997 ND 56, ¶8, 562 N.W.2d 91 .

2004State v. Skorick, 2002 ND 190, ¶ 11 , 653 N.W.2d 698 ; Evans, 1999 ND 70, ¶ 11 , 593 N.W.2d 336 ; City of Williston v. Hegstad, 1997 ND 56, ¶8, 562 N.W.2d 91 .

2004State v. Skorick, 2002 ND 190, ¶ 11 , 653 N.W.2d 698 ; Evans, 1999 ND 70, ¶ 11 , 593 N.W.2d 336 ; City of Williston v. Hegstad, 1997 ND 56, ¶8, 562 N.W.2d 91 .

2004State v. Skorick, 2002 ND 190, ¶ 11 , 653 N.W.2d 698 ; Evans, 1999 ND 70, ¶ 11 , 593 N.W.2d 336 ; City of Williston v. Hegstad, 1997 ND 56, ¶8, 562 N.W.2d 91 .

1998Olano, 507 U.S. at 734-35 , 113 S.Ct. at 1777-78 , explains that the “substantial rights” inquiry of F.R.Crim.P. 52(b) requires an analysis similar to the harmless error review of F.R.Crim.P. 52(a), except subsection (b) places the burden on the accused to show the error was prejudicial. [¶ 16] Under the Olano framework, once an accused establishes a forfeited plain error does affect substantial rights, an appellate court has discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it “ ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Olano, 507 U.S

1998Olano, 507 U.S. at 734-35 , 113 S.Ct. at 1777-78 , explains that the “substantial rights” inquiry of F.R.Crim.P. 52(b) requires an analysis similar to the harmless error review of F.R.Crim.P. 52(a), except subsection (b) places the burden on the accused to show the error was prejudicial. [¶ 16] Under the Olano framework, once an accused establishes a forfeited plain error does affect substantial rights, an appellate court has discretion to correct the error and should correct it if it “ ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Olano, 507 U.S

1998In Johnson, 520 U.S. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 1550 , 137 L.Ed.2d at 729 , the Court, in a perjury prosecution, held a decision by a trial judge, rather than the jury, that a statement was “material” was not a plain error an appellate court could properly notice under F.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

1998In Johnson, 520 U.S. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 1550 , 137 L.Ed.2d at 729 , the Court, in a perjury prosecution, held a decision by a trial judge, rather than the jury, that a statement was “material” was not a plain error an appellate court could properly notice under F.R.Crim.P. 52(b).