law plain error in Montana

2026However, we may discretionally “review unpreserved claims alleging errors implicating a criminal defendant’s fundamental rights under the common law plain error doctrine.” George, ¶ 4 (citing State v. Akers, 2017 MT 311, ¶ 13 , 389 Mont. 531 , 408 P.3d 142 ).

2026However, we may discretionally “review unpreserved claims alleging errors implicating a criminal defendant’s fundamental rights under the common law plain error doctrine.” George, ¶ 4 (citing State v. Akers, 2017 MT 311, ¶ 13 , 389 Mont. 531 , 408 P.3d 142 ).

2011However, we have invoked the common law plain error doctrine to discretionarily review claimed errors that implicate a criminal defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights-even if no contemporaneous objection is made-where failing to review the claimed error may result in a “manifest miscarriage of justice, may 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 , 915 P.2d 208 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont.

2011However, we have invoked the common law plain error doctrine to discretionarily review claimed errors that implicate a criminal defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights-even if no contemporaneous objection is made-where failing to review the claimed error may result in a “manifest miscarriage of justice, may 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 , 915 P.2d 208 (1996), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont.

2018We may choose to review a claim under the common law plain error doctrine when a criminal defendant's fundamental rights are invoked and where failing to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process. ***380 State v. Taylor , 2010 MT 94 , ¶ 12, 356 Mont. 167 , 231 P.3d 79 (citing State v. Jackson , 2009 MT 427 , ¶ 42, 354 Mont. 63 , 221 P.3d 1213 ).

2018We may choose to review a claim under the common law plain error doctrine when a criminal defendant's fundamental rights are invoked and where failing to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process. ***380 State v. Taylor , 2010 MT 94 , ¶ 12, 356 Mont. 167 , 231 P.3d 79 (citing State v. Jackson , 2009 MT 427 , ¶ 42, 354 Mont. 63 , 221 P.3d 1213 ).

2025For the first time on appeal, Wolfchild contends that the State must bring separate misdemeanor theft charges to ensure that the State proves each essential element of each predicate offense beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶15 “We review an unpreserved claim, under the common law plain error doctrine, at our discretion.” State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 23 , 381 Mont. 472 , 362 P.3d 1126 .

2025For the first time on appeal, Wolfchild contends that the State must bring separate misdemeanor theft charges to ensure that the State proves each essential element of each predicate offense beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶15 “We review an unpreserved claim, under the common law plain error doctrine, at our discretion.” State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 23 , 381 Mont. 472 , 362 P.3d 1126 .

2015Compare In re D.K.D., ¶ 16 (“We have recently held that, to apply the common law plain error doctrine, the ‘error must be plain’ and we must be ‘firmly convinced’ that an aspect of the proceeding, if not addressed, would result in one of the aforementioned consequences.”) with State v. Ugalde, 2013 MT 308, ¶ 62 , 372 Mont. 234 , 311 P.3d 772 (“While we do not decide whether the prosecution’s argument was objectionable, we conclude after a review of the record and the District Court’s careful consideration of the issue that—in the context of the surrounding statements—it did not rise to the lev

2015Compare In re D.K.D., ¶ 16 (“We have recently held that, to apply the common law plain error doctrine, the ‘error must be plain’ and we must be ‘firmly convinced’ that an aspect of the proceeding, if not addressed, would result in one of the aforementioned consequences.”) with State v. Ugalde, 2013 MT 308, ¶ 62 , 372 Mont. 234 , 311 P.3d 772 (“While we do not decide whether the prosecution’s argument was objectionable, we conclude after a review of the record and the District Court’s careful consideration of the issue that—in the context of the surrounding statements—it did not rise to the lev

2010State v. Longfellow, 2008 MT 343, ¶ 19 , 346 Mont. 286, 290 , 194 P.3d 694, 697 .

2010State v. Longfellow, 2008 MT 343, ¶ 19 , 346 Mont. 286, 290 , 194 P.3d 694, 697 .

2022"We discretionally may review unpreserved clairns alleging errors irnplicating a criminal defendant's fundamental rights under the common law plain error doctrine." State v. George, 2020 MT 56,114 , 399 Mont. 173 , 459 P.3d 854 (internal citation omitted). 4 Section 46-11-205(1)-(2), MCA, provides, in relevant part: (1) The court may allow an information to be amended in matters of substance at any time, but not less than [five] days before trial, provided that a rnotion is filed in a timely manner, states the nature of the proposed amendrnent, and is accornpanied by an affidavit stating facts

2022"We discretionally may review unpreserved clairns alleging errors irnplicating a criminal defendant's fundamental rights under the common law plain error doctrine." State v. George, 2020 MT 56,114 , 399 Mont. 173 , 459 P.3d 854 (internal citation omitted). 4 Section 46-11-205(1)-(2), MCA, provides, in relevant part: (1) The court may allow an information to be amended in matters of substance at any time, but not less than [five] days before trial, provided that a rnotion is filed in a timely manner, states the nature of the proposed amendrnent, and is accornpanied by an affidavit stating facts

2010Specifically, Parrish contends that the District Court should have sua sponte instructed the jury as to the lesser included offense of § 45-5-208, MCA, Negligent endangerment. ¶24 Although we have exercised discretionary authority to review claimed errors that affect a defendant’s fundamental rights under the common law plain error doctrine where no objections are made at trial, State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996), the plain error doctrine is “to be employed sparingly’ and “pursuant to narrow circumstances.” State v. Lindberg, 2008 MT 389, ¶ 34 , 347 Mont. 76 , 196 P

2010Specifically, Parrish contends that the District Court should have sua sponte instructed the jury as to the lesser included offense of § 45-5-208, MCA, Negligent endangerment. ¶24 Although we have exercised discretionary authority to review claimed errors that affect a defendant’s fundamental rights under the common law plain error doctrine where no objections are made at trial, State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996), the plain error doctrine is “to be employed sparingly’ and “pursuant to narrow circumstances.” State v. Lindberg, 2008 MT 389, ¶ 34 , 347 Mont. 76 , 196 P

2023Presley asks this Court to exercise plain error review because he made no contemporaneous objection nor requested a withdrawal of plea. ¶7 “Unpreserved issues alleging violations of a fundamental constitutional right are reviewable under the common law plain error doctrine.” State v. Valenzuela, 2021 MT 244, ¶ 8 , 405 Mont. 409 , 495 P.3d 1061 .

2023Presley asks this Court to exercise plain error review because he made no contemporaneous objection nor requested a withdrawal of plea. ¶7 “Unpreserved issues alleging violations of a fundamental constitutional right are reviewable under the common law plain error doctrine.” State v. Valenzuela, 2021 MT 244, ¶ 8 , 405 Mont. 409 , 495 P.3d 1061 .

2022Nevertheless, when a criminal defendant’s fundamental rights are invoked, this Court “may . . . review a claim under the common law plain error doctrine where failing to review the claimed error may 5 result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Taylor, 2010 MT 94, ¶ 12 , 356 Mont. 167 , 231 P.3d 79 (citations omitted). ¶10 This Court “review[s] criminal sentences that include at least one year of actual incarceration to determine whether

2022Nevertheless, when a criminal defendant’s fundamental rights are invoked, this Court “may . . . review a claim under the common law plain error doctrine where failing to review the claimed error may 5 result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Taylor, 2010 MT 94, ¶ 12 , 356 Mont. 167 , 231 P.3d 79 (citations omitted). ¶10 This Court “review[s] criminal sentences that include at least one year of actual incarceration to determine whether

2021See State v. Barrows, 2018 MT 204, ¶ 8 , 392 Mont. 358 , 424 P.3d 612 ; State v. Lawrence, 2016 MT 346, ¶ 9 , 386 Mont. 86 , 385 P.3d 968 .

2021See State v. Barrows, 2018 MT 204, ¶ 8 , 392 Mont. 358 , 424 P.3d 612 ; State v. Lawrence, 2016 MT 346, ¶ 9 , 386 Mont. 86 , 385 P.3d 968 .

2011Additionally, we invoke the common law plain error doctrine “sparingly and only in those limited situations where failure to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” In re Mental Health of A.S.F., 2008 MT 450, ¶ 5 , 340 Mont. 45 , 199 P.3d 808 (internal citations omitted); see also Emmerson v. Walker, 2010 MT 167, ¶ 28 , 357 Mont. 166 , 236 P.3d 598 (‘The doctrine is invoked ‘sparingly1 in criminal cases and ‘only on rare occasion’ in civil cases.’0 (internal citations omitted).

2011Additionally, we invoke the common law plain error doctrine “sparingly and only in those limited situations where failure to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” In re Mental Health of A.S.F., 2008 MT 450, ¶ 5 , 340 Mont. 45 , 199 P.3d 808 (internal citations omitted); see also Emmerson v. Walker, 2010 MT 167, ¶ 28 , 357 Mont. 166 , 236 P.3d 598 (‘The doctrine is invoked ‘sparingly1 in criminal cases and ‘only on rare occasion’ in civil cases.’0 (internal citations omitted).

2026State v. Deveraux, 2022 MT 130, ¶ 21 , 409 Mont. 177 , 512 P.3d 1198 ; State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996).

2026State v. Deveraux, 2022 MT 130, ¶ 21 , 409 Mont. 177 , 512 P.3d 1198 ; State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 137 , 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996).

2025State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 133-36 , 915 P.2d 208, 213-14 (1995), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215 , 19 P.3d 817 ; State v. Trujillo, 2020 MT 128, ¶ 6 , 400 Mont. 124 , 464 P.3d 72 .

2025State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 133-36 , 915 P.2d 208, 213-14 (1995), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215 , 19 P.3d 817 ; State v. Trujillo, 2020 MT 128, ¶ 6 , 400 Mont. 124 , 464 P.3d 72 .

2025“However, as a narrow exception to the waiver rule, we may, in our discretion, review an unpreserved assertion of error under the common law plain error doctrine upon an affirmative showing of: (1) a plain or obvious error; (2) that implicates a constitutional or other substantial right; and (3) which will, if not corrected, result in a manifest miscarriage of justice or otherwise prejudicially undermine the fundamental fairness of the proceeding or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Miller, 2022 MT 92 , ¶ 10, 408 Mont. 316 , 510 P.3d 17 (collecting cases).

2025Wolfchild contends that neither the 1 We note that the charging documents and the District Court’s findings of fact use slightly different values for the items stolen on June 7 ($409.98 and $408.99, respectively) and the total value stolen ($1,676.88 and $1,675.89, respectively) This discrepancy of ninety-nine cents is immaterial to our ultimate holding, it is not prejudicial to Wolfchild, and the trial evidence supported the District Court’s findings. 4 surveillance video evidence nor trial testimony proved that he was in control of the items stolen on June 7, 2022, and that the evidence show

2025Wolfchild contends that neither the 1 We note that the charging documents and the District Court’s findings of fact use slightly different values for the items stolen on June 7 ($409.98 and $408.99, respectively) and the total value stolen ($1,676.88 and $1,675.89, respectively) This discrepancy of ninety-nine cents is immaterial to our ultimate holding, it is not prejudicial to Wolfchild, and the trial evidence supported the District Court’s findings. 4 surveillance video evidence nor trial testimony proved that he was in control of the items stolen on June 7, 2022, and that the evidence show

2025City of Kalispell v. Salsgiver, 2019 MT 126, ¶ 11 , 396 Mont. 57 , 443 P.3d 504 . ¶13 The common law plain error doctrine provides a narrow exception to the rule that failure to preserve an assertion of error generally waives the right to later appellate review.

2025City of Kalispell v. Salsgiver, 2019 MT 126, ¶ 11 , 396 Mont. 57 , 443 P.3d 504 . ¶13 The common law plain error doctrine provides a narrow exception to the rule that failure to preserve an assertion of error generally waives the right to later appellate review.

2025Trujillo, ¶ 6; State v. Wilkins, 229 Mont. 78, 80-81 , 746 P.2d 588, 589 (1987); State v. Cole, 2025 MT 18 , ¶ 6, 420 Mont. 231 , 562 P.3d 1065 (“[t]he purpose of plain error review is to correct error not objected to at trial but that affects the fairness and integrity of the proceedings”). ¶18 We may, in our discretion, reverse a lower court decision for “plain error” upon an affirmative showing that (1) the error affected a fundamental constitutional right and (2) failure to review and correct the error would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice or otherwise undermine the fundamental

2025Trujillo, ¶ 6; State v. Wilkins, 229 Mont. 78, 80-81 , 746 P.2d 588, 589 (1987); State v. Cole, 2025 MT 18 , ¶ 6, 420 Mont. 231 , 562 P.3d 1065 (“[t]he purpose of plain error review is to correct error not objected to at trial but that affects the fairness and integrity of the proceedings”). ¶18 We may, in our discretion, reverse a lower court decision for “plain error” upon an affirmative showing that (1) the error affected a fundamental constitutional right and (2) failure to review and correct the error would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice or otherwise undermine the fundamental

2022Nevertheless, when a criminal defendant’s fundamental rights are invoked, this Court “may . . . review a claim under the common law plain error doctrine where failing to review the claimed error may 5 result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Taylor, 2010 MT 94, ¶ 12 , 356 Mont. 167 , 231 P.3d 79 (citations omitted). ¶10 This Court “review[s] criminal sentences that include at least one year of actual incarceration to determine whether

2022Nevertheless, when a criminal defendant’s fundamental rights are invoked, this Court “may . . . review a claim under the common law plain error doctrine where failing to review the claimed error may 5 result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Taylor, 2010 MT 94, ¶ 12 , 356 Mont. 167 , 231 P.3d 79 (citations omitted). ¶10 This Court “review[s] criminal sentences that include at least one year of actual incarceration to determine whether