failure to recognize error in Vermont

2026When reviewing for plain error, the Supreme Court considers whether “exceptional circumstances [exist] where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Yoh, 2006 VT 49A, ¶ 39, 180 Vt. 317 (quoting State v. Oscarson, 2004 VT 4, ¶ 27 , 176 Vt. 176 ).

2016“Plain-error analysis requires us to consider whether these are exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Yoh, 2006 VT 49A, ¶ 39, 180 Vt. 317 (quotation omitted).

2024Plain error occurs “only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” In re Carter, 2004 VT 21, ¶ 21 , 176 Vt. 322 (quotation omitted).

2024Plain error occurs “only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” In re Carter, 2004 VT 21, ¶ 21 , 176 Vt. 322 (quotation omitted).

2025Plain error “exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Davis, 2020 VT 20 , ¶ 20, 211 Vt. 624 (quotation omitted).

2020State v. Davis, 2020 VT 20 , ¶ 20, __ Vt. __, __ A.3d __. “[P]lain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant's constitutional rights.” Id. (quotation omitted).

2020“We have held that errors in unsettled areas of law are not obvious, and therefore not plain.” State v. Provost, 2014 VT 86A, ¶ 14, 199 Vt. 568 , 133 A.3d 826 (citing cases); see also State v. Gilbert, 2009 VT 7, ¶ 7 , 185 Vt. 602 , 969 A.2d 125 (mem.) (finding no plain error where Court had not yet decided issue raised by defendant for first time on appeal, and thus “defendant [could not] show that any error of law the trial court may have made was obvious”). ¶ 21.

2020“We have held that errors in unsettled areas of law are not obvious, and therefore not plain.” State v. Provost, 2014 VT 86A, ¶ 14, 199 Vt. 568 , 133 A.3d 826 (citing cases); see also State v. Gilbert, 2009 VT 7, ¶ 7 , 185 Vt. 602 , 969 A.2d 125 (mem.) (finding no plain error where Court had not yet decided issue raised by defendant for first time on appeal, and thus “defendant [could not] show that any error of law the trial court may have made was obvious”). ¶ 21.

2020“As we have repeatedly emphasized, plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Erwin, 2011 VT 41, ¶ 15 , 189 Vt. 502 , 26 A.3d 1 (quotation, alteration, and emphasis omitted).

2020“As we have repeatedly emphasized, plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Erwin, 2011 VT 41, ¶ 15 , 189 Vt. 502 , 26 A.3d 1 (quotation, alteration, and emphasis omitted).

2016Plain error exists “only where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Viens, 2009 VT 64, ¶ 11 , 186 Vt. 138 , 978 A.2d 37 (quotation omitted).

2016Plain error exists “only where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Viens, 2009 VT 64, ¶ 11 , 186 Vt. 138 , 978 A.2d 37 (quotation omitted).

2015“Plain error can be found only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Brandt, 2012 VT 73, ¶ 25 , 192 Vt. 277 , 59 A.3d 141 (quotation omitted). ¶ 70.

2015“Plain error can be found only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Brandt, 2012 VT 73, ¶ 25 , 192 Vt. 277 , 59 A.3d 141 (quotation omitted). ¶ 70.

2013Plain error arises only “in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Bain, 2009 VT 34, ¶ 18 , 185 Vt. 541 , 975 A.2d 628 (quotation omitted). ¶ 16.

2013Plain error arises only “in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Bain, 2009 VT 34, ¶ 18 , 185 Vt. 541 , 975 A.2d 628 (quotation omitted). ¶ 16.

2011As noted above, “[pjlain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Lee, 2008 VT 128, ¶ 11 , 185 Vt. 110 , 967 A.2d 1161 (quotation omitted).

2011As noted above, “[pjlain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Lee, 2008 VT 128, ¶ 11 , 185 Vt. 110 , 967 A.2d 1161 (quotation omitted).

2025Moreover, “plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant's constitutional rights.” Talandar v. Manchester-Murphy, 2024 VT 86, ¶ 36 , 331 A.3d 1093 (quotation omitted). 3 Plaintiff quotes three statements made by defense counsel in closing, where counsel argued that neither a provider nor Dr. Krag was able to convince Peter to stay on Vivitrol.

2025Moreover, “plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant's constitutional rights.” Talandar v. Manchester-Murphy, 2024 VT 86, ¶ 36 , 331 A.3d 1093 (quotation omitted). 3 Plaintiff quotes three statements made by defense counsel in closing, where counsel argued that neither a provider nor Dr. Krag was able to convince Peter to stay on Vivitrol.

2025“Cross-examination satisfies the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee if the defendant is allowed the opportunity to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.” State v. Robitille, 2019 VT 36, ¶ 18 , 210 Vt. 202 (quotation omitted).

2025“Plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize an error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Brochu, 2008 VT 21, ¶ 71 , 183 Vt. 269 .  Defendant was also concerned that the nurse would testify about events that occurred in New York, which defendant posited would amount to inadmissible information regarding other bad acts. 2 Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court committed any error, let alone plain err

2025“Plain error exists only in exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize an error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is a glaring error so grave and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Brochu, 2008 VT 21, ¶ 71 , 183 Vt. 269 .  Defendant was also concerned that the nurse would testify about events that occurred in New York, which defendant posited would amount to inadmissible information regarding other bad acts. 2 Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court committed any error, let alone plain err

2024“Plain error analysis evaluates four factors: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be obvious; (3) the error must affect substantial rights and result in prejudice to the defendant; and (4) we must correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Cahill, 2013 VT 69, ¶ 15 , 194 Vt. 335 (quotation omitted).

2024“Plain error analysis evaluates four factors: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be obvious; (3) the error must affect substantial rights and result in prejudice to the defendant; and (4) we must correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Cahill, 2013 VT 69, ¶ 15 , 194 Vt. 335 (quotation omitted).

2024We will consider a plain-error argument in a civil case “only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of depravation of fundamental rights, or when a liberty interest is at stake in a quasi-criminal or hybrid civil-criminal probation hearing.” Follo v. Florindo, 2009 VT 11, ¶ 16 , 185 Vt. 390 , 970 A.2d 1230 (citation omitted).

2024We will consider a plain-error argument in a civil case “only in limited circumstances, i.e., when an appellant raises a claim of depravation of fundamental rights, or when a liberty interest is at stake in a quasi-criminal or hybrid civil-criminal probation hearing.” Follo v. Florindo, 2009 VT 11, ¶ 16 , 185 Vt. 390 , 970 A.2d 1230 (citation omitted).

2021We have often used the “more concrete federal plain-error test” as a guide in “applying our plain-error standard.” Id. ¶¶ 39-40 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)).

2018When jury instructions are challenged on appeal, "[e]rror will be assigned only when the entire charge undermines our confidence in the verdict, and only in extraordinary cases will we find plain error." State v. Lambert , 2003 VT 28 , ¶ 14, 175 Vt. 275 , 830 A.2d 9 (quotation omitted). ¶ 8.

2018When jury instructions are challenged on appeal, "[e]rror will be assigned only when the entire charge undermines our confidence in the verdict, and only in extraordinary cases will we find plain error." State v. Lambert , 2003 VT 28 , ¶ 14, 175 Vt. 275 , 830 A.2d 9 (quotation omitted). ¶ 8.

2015“Plain-error analysis requires us to consider whether these are exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave *353 and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Danforth, 2008 VT 69, ¶ 11 , 184 Vt. 122 , 956 A.2d 554 (quotation omitted). ¶ 35.

2015“Plain-error analysis requires us to consider whether these are exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave *353 and serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant’s constitutional rights.” State v. Danforth, 2008 VT 69, ¶ 11 , 184 Vt. 122 , 956 A.2d 554 (quotation omitted). ¶ 35.

2013Defendant first argues that the victim’s counseling sessions were a “cost of prosecution,” citing Forant, 168 Vt. at 220-21 , which held that travel and child care expenses incurred by the victim to meet with the prosecutor and attend court proceedings were “so directly related to the cost of prosecution that they are not taxable to defendant under the present statutory scheme.” Id. at 221 .

2013Defendant first argues that the victim’s counseling sessions were a “cost of prosecution,” citing Forant, 168 Vt. at 220-21 , which held that travel and child care expenses incurred by the victim to meet with the prosecutor and attend court proceedings were “so directly related to the cost of prosecution that they are not taxable to defendant under the present statutory scheme.” Id. at 221 .

2009State v. Schreiner, 2007 VT 138, ¶ 36 , 183 Vt. 42 , 944 A.2d 250 . ¶24.

2009State v. Schreiner, 2007 VT 138, ¶ 36 , 183 Vt. 42 , 944 A.2d 250 . ¶24.

2009When evaluating jury instructions, we necessarily consider the instructions in their entirety “to determine if *581 they sufficiently guided the jury and did not have a prejudicial impact on their deliberations.” State v. Jones, 2008 VT 67, ¶ 23 , 184 Vt. 150 , 955 A.2d 1190 .

2009When evaluating jury instructions, we necessarily consider the instructions in their entirety “to determine if *581 they sufficiently guided the jury and did not have a prejudicial impact on their deliberations.” State v. Jones, 2008 VT 67, ¶ 23 , 184 Vt. 150 , 955 A.2d 1190 .