plain error in Nebraska

2022Plain error may be found on appeal when an error unasserted or uncomplained of at trial, but plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant’s substantial right and, if uncor- rected, would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. 13 Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion of an appellate court. 14 [7‑9] A sentence that is contrary to the court’s statutory authority is an appropriate matter for plain error review. 15 The power to define criminal conduct and fix its punishment is vested in the legislative branch, wherea

2022Plain error may be found on appeal when an error unasserted or uncomplained of at trial, but plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant’s substantial right and, if uncor- rected, would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. 13 Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion of an appellate court. 14 [7‑9] A sentence that is contrary to the court’s statutory authority is an appropriate matter for plain error review. 15 The power to define criminal conduct and fix its punishment is vested in the legislative branch, wherea

2021The court may, at its option, notice a plain error not assigned. [2,3] Parties who wish to secure appellate review of their claims must abide by the rules of the Nebraska Supreme Court. 4 Any party who fails to properly identify and present its claim does so at its own peril. 5 Depending on the particulars of each case, failure to comply with the mandates of § 2-109(D) may result in an appellate court waiving the error, proceed- ing on a plain error review only, or declining to conduct any review at all. 6 4 Steffy v. Steffy, 287 Neb. 529 , 843 N.W.2d 655 (2014). 5 Id.

2014Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.9 [7] Where credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.10 ANALYSIS [8] In parental relocation cases, trial and appellate courts deal with the tension created by a mobile society and the prob­ lems associated with

2025Id.

2022ROTH Cite as 311 Neb. 1007 STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] When sentences imposed within statutory limits are alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must determine whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in considering well‑established factors and any applicable legal principles. 1 A judicial abuse of discretion exists only when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or con- science, reason, and evidence. 2 [3,4] Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion of an appellate court.

2025Generally, an appellate court will find plain error only when a miscarriage of justice would otherwise occur. 24 [10,11] In our recent cases, “‘we have actually treated a defendant’s failure to move for a mistrial on the basis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct more like a forfeiture by conducting a plain error review in such circumstances.’” 25 Consistent with that language, we now articulate this prin- ciple: A party who fails to make a timely motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct forfeits the right to assert on appeal that the court erred in not declaring a mistrial 23 See

2025Generally, an appellate court will find plain error only when a miscarriage of justice would otherwise occur. 24 [10,11] In our recent cases, “‘we have actually treated a defendant’s failure to move for a mistrial on the basis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct more like a forfeiture by conducting a plain error review in such circumstances.’” 25 Consistent with that language, we now articulate this prin- ciple: A party who fails to make a timely motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct forfeits the right to assert on appeal that the court erred in not declaring a mistrial 23 See

2022Plain error may be found on appeal when an error unasserted or uncomplained of at trial, but plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant’s substantial right and, if uncor- rected, would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. 13 Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion of an appellate court. 14 [7‑9] A sentence that is contrary to the court’s statutory authority is an appropriate matter for plain error review. 15 The power to define criminal conduct and fix its punishment is vested in the legislative branch, wherea

2022Plain error may be found on appeal when an error unasserted or uncomplained of at trial, but plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant’s substantial right and, if uncor- rected, would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. 13 Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion of an appellate court. 14 [7‑9] A sentence that is contrary to the court’s statutory authority is an appropriate matter for plain error review. 15 The power to define criminal conduct and fix its punishment is vested in the legislative branch, wherea

2023GARCIA Cite as 315 Neb. 74 alleges that his counsel was ineffective in (2) failing to seek a mistrial in response to the State’s closing arguments, (3) invit- ing the inappropriate comments made in the State’s closing arguments, and (4) failing to research and abide by Nebraska law with regard to closing arguments. (b) Standard of Review and Propositions of Law [39,40] When a defendant has not preserved a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for direct appeal, we will review the record only for plain error. 107 We apply the plain error excep- tion to the contemporaneous-objection rule sparingly.

2023GARCIA Cite as 315 Neb. 74 alleges that his counsel was ineffective in (2) failing to seek a mistrial in response to the State’s closing arguments, (3) invit- ing the inappropriate comments made in the State’s closing arguments, and (4) failing to research and abide by Nebraska law with regard to closing arguments. (b) Standard of Review and Propositions of Law [39,40] When a defendant has not preserved a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for direct appeal, we will review the record only for plain error. 107 We apply the plain error excep- tion to the contemporaneous-objection rule sparingly.

2019Id.

2017Id.

2021He therefore asks that we review both assignments for plain error. 2 State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835 , 957 N.W.2d 143 (2021). 3 State v. Hernandez, ante p. 299, 959 N.W.2d 769 (2021). 4 Brief for appellant at 14. 5 Id. - 758 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COOMES Cite as 309 Neb. 749 [3] Plain error exists where there is an error, plainly evident from the record but not complained of at trial, which prejudi- cially affects a substantial right of a litigant and is of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of justice or result i

2021He therefore asks that we review both assignments for plain error. 2 State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835 , 957 N.W.2d 143 (2021). 3 State v. Hernandez, ante p. 299, 959 N.W.2d 769 (2021). 4 Brief for appellant at 14. 5 Id. - 758 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COOMES Cite as 309 Neb. 749 [3] Plain error exists where there is an error, plainly evident from the record but not complained of at trial, which prejudi- cially affects a substantial right of a litigant and is of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of justice or result i

2000Plain error is “error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.” Id. at 233 , 512 N.W.2d at 365 .

2000Plain error is “error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.” Id. at 233 , 512 N.W.2d at 365 .

2025Va. 240, 245 , 654 S.E.2d 364, 369 (2007) (“[t]he primary goal of the jury selection process is to obtain a jury that will fairly and impartially decide the case at hand”); State v. Fullwood, 343 N.C. 725, 732 , 472 S.E.2d 883, 886 (1996) (“‘[t]he primary goal of the jury selection process is to ensure selection of a jury comprised only of persons who will render a fair and impartial verdict’”). 36 Brief for appellant at 18. 37 State v. Horne, 315 Neb. 766 , 1 N.W.3d 457 (2024). - 919 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports CZECH V.

2024Plain error “is not a vehicle that should be routinely used to ‘save’ -7- an issue for appeal where a proper objection should have been, but was not, made at trial.” State v. Horne, 315 Neb. 766, 779 , 1 N.W.3d 457 , 466 (2024).

2022Plain error may be found on appeal when an error unasserted or uncomplained of at trial, but plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant’s substantial right and, if uncor- rected, would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. 13 Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion of an appellate court. 14 [7‑9] A sentence that is contrary to the court’s statutory authority is an appropriate matter for plain error review. 15 The power to define criminal conduct and fix its punishment is vested in the legislative branch, wherea

2022Plain error may be found on appeal when an error unasserted or uncomplained of at trial, but plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant’s substantial right and, if uncor- rected, would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. 13 Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion of an appellate court. 14 [7‑9] A sentence that is contrary to the court’s statutory authority is an appropriate matter for plain error review. 15 The power to define criminal conduct and fix its punishment is vested in the legislative branch, wherea

2022State v. Briggs, 303 Neb. 352 , 929 N.W.2d 65 (2019).

2022State v. Briggs, 303 Neb. 352 , 929 N.W.2d 65 (2019).

2019State v. Davlin, 263 Neb. 283 , 639 N.W.2d 631 (2002).

2019State v. Davlin, 263 Neb. 283 , 639 N.W.2d 631 (2002).

2013Counsel suggested that the instruction may constitute plain error. [3,4] Plain error may be found on appeal when an error unasserted or uncomplained of at trial, but plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant’s substantial right and, if uncorrected, would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process.4 Jury instruc- tions are not prejudicial if they, when taken as a whole, cor- rectly state the law, are not misleading, and adequately cover the issues supported by the pleadings and the evidence.5 We note that instruction No. 3 correct

2013Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. WATT 667 Cite as 285 Neb. 647 have noted, “‘the plain-error exception to the contempora- neous-objection rule is to be “used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would other- wise result.”’”33 [18-21] Generally, in assessing allegations of prosecuto- rial misconduct in closing arguments, a court first determines whether the prosecutor’s remarks were improper.34 It is then necessary to determine the extent to which the improper remarks had a prejudicial effect on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.35 Prosecutors are charg

2025Plain error may be found on appeal when an error unasserted or uncomplained of at trial, but plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant’s substantial right and, if uncorrected, would result in damage to the integ- rity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. 78 We find no plain error in the court’s refusal to give Price’s requested instructions. 76 State v. Montoya, 304 Neb. 96 , 933 N.W.2d 558 (2019). 77 State v. Abdullah, 289 Neb. 123 , 853 N.W.2d 858 (2014). 78 State v. McSwine, 292 Neb. 565 , 873 N.W.2d 405 (2016). - 56 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance She

2023GARCIA Cite as 315 Neb. 74 alleges that his counsel was ineffective in (2) failing to seek a mistrial in response to the State’s closing arguments, (3) invit- ing the inappropriate comments made in the State’s closing arguments, and (4) failing to research and abide by Nebraska law with regard to closing arguments. (b) Standard of Review and Propositions of Law [39,40] When a defendant has not preserved a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for direct appeal, we will review the record only for plain error. 107 We apply the plain error excep- tion to the contemporaneous-objection rule sparingly.

2025However, we need not reach the merits of either of those claims, because the plain error appear- ing on the record is dispositive of those two claims. [2-4] As mentioned above, plain error is error plainly evi- dent from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, 6 State v. Childs, 309 Neb. 427 , 960 N.W.2d 585 (2021). - 551 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 320 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2025However, we need not reach the merits of either of those claims, because the plain error appear- ing on the record is dispositive of those two claims. [2-4] As mentioned above, plain error is error plainly evi- dent from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, 6 State v. Childs, 309 Neb. 427 , 960 N.W.2d 585 (2021). - 551 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 320 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2025Generally, an appellate court will find plain error only when a miscarriage of justice would otherwise occur. 24 [10,11] In our recent cases, “‘we have actually treated a defendant’s failure to move for a mistrial on the basis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct more like a forfeiture by conducting a plain error review in such circumstances.’” 25 Consistent with that language, we now articulate this prin- ciple: A party who fails to make a timely motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct forfeits the right to assert on appeal that the court erred in not declaring a mistrial 23 See

2025Generally, an appellate court will find plain error only when a miscarriage of justice would otherwise occur. 24 [10,11] In our recent cases, “‘we have actually treated a defendant’s failure to move for a mistrial on the basis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct more like a forfeiture by conducting a plain error review in such circumstances.’” 25 Consistent with that language, we now articulate this prin- ciple: A party who fails to make a timely motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct forfeits the right to assert on appeal that the court erred in not declaring a mistrial 23 See