timely objection instruction in District of Columbia

2014“Under [that] standard, appellant must show not only that the error was plain or obvious, but also that the error affected substantial rights and resulted in a clear miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 992 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). “[T]he plain-error exception is cold comfort to most defendants pursuing claims of instructional error.” Wilson v. United States, 785 A.2d 321, 326 (D.C.2001) (citation omitted). 7 Appellant has not met his burden of demonstrating plain error.

2004See Wilson v. United States, 785 A.2d 321, 326 (D.C.2001).

2023To the contrary, a defendant could demonstrably was aware of the potential error and broached it sua sponte” because the “purpose of requiring a timely objection to the error, which is to alert the trial court and give it an opportunity to correct the error, has been met” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Lewis v. United States, 263 A.3d 1049 , 1060 (D.C. 2021) (where trial court identified relevance as an issue, relevance challenge on appeal deemed preserved); Chatmon v. United States, 801 A.2d 92, 100 (D.C. 2002) (explaining “the purpose of the requirement of timely exceptions to trial er

2023To the contrary, a defendant could demonstrably was aware of the potential error and broached it sua sponte” because the “purpose of requiring a timely objection to the error, which is to alert the trial court and give it an opportunity to correct the error, has been met” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Lewis v. United States, 263 A.3d 1049 , 1060 (D.C. 2021) (where trial court identified relevance as an issue, relevance challenge on appeal deemed preserved); Chatmon v. United States, 801 A.2d 92, 100 (D.C. 2002) (explaining “the purpose of the requirement of timely exceptions to trial er

2023“When a party fails to raise a timely objection to an instruction” or to the court’s response to a jury question, the claimed error is not preserved, and “we will review that claim of error under the plain error standard.” Buskey v. United States, 148 A.3d 1193, 1204 (D.C. 2016) (quoting Mobley v. United States, 101 A.3d 406, 422 (D.C. 2014)).

2023“Courts are especially reluctant to reverse for plain error when it is invited.” Cowan v. United States, 629 A.2d 496, 503 (D.C. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023See Robinson v. United States, 76 A.3d 329 , 341 n.24 (D.C. 2013) (concluding that “the government forfeited its opportunity to defend its seizure and search of [the defendant] based on [a] new theory” not litigated in the trial court).

2023“When a party fails to raise a timely objection to an instruction” or to the court’s response to a jury question, the claimed error is not preserved, and “we will review that claim of error under the plain error standard.” Buskey v. United States, 148 A.3d 1193, 1204 (D.C. 2016) (quoting Mobley v. United States, 101 A.3d 406, 422 (D.C. 2014)).

2021If all three of those conditions are met, an appellate court may exercise its discretion to grant relief from a forfeited error, “but only if . . . the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 520 U.S. at 467 ). 9 Brown v. United States, 726 A.2d 149, 154 (D.C. 1999). 10 held that a claim is not forfeited where, despite defense counsel’s failure to object, the trial judge demonstrably was aware of the potential error and broached it sua sponte.10 When that is so, we have explained, the purpose of requiring a timely ob

2014“Under [that] standard, [he] must show not only that the error was plain or obvious, but also that the error affected substantial rights and resulted in a clear miscarriage of justice.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Neder, supra, 527 U.S. at 9 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (holding that instructional error that does not “seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” may not require reversal).

2014“Under [that] standard, [he] must show not only that the error was plain or obvious, but also that the error affected substantial rights and resulted in a clear miscarriage of justice.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Neder, supra, 527 U.S. at 9 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (holding that instructional error that does not “seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” may not require reversal).

2014Plain Error Analysis “When a party fails to raise a timely objection to an instruction, we will review that claim of error under the plain error standard.” Williams v. United States, 858 A.2d 984, 990 (D.C.2004).

2014“Under [that] standard, appellant must show not only that the error was plain or obvious, but also that the error affected substantial rights and resulted in a clear miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 992 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). “[T]he plain-error exception is cold comfort to most defendants pursuing claims of instructional error.” Wilson v. United States, 785 A.2d 321, 326 (D.C.2001) (citation omitted). 7 Appellant has not met his burden of demonstrating plain error.

2014“When a party fails to raise a timely objection to an instruction, we will review that claim of error under the plain error standard.” Owens, supra, 90 A.3d at 1123 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2014“When a party fails to raise a timely objection to an instruction, we will review that claim of error under the plain error standard.” Owens, supra, 90 A.3d at 1123 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

1992Story v. Rivers, 220 Ga. 232, 233 , 138 S.E.2d 304, 305 (1964).

1992Story v. Rivers, 220 Ga. 232, 233 , 138 S.E.2d 304, 305 (1964).

1987Super.Ct.Crim.R. 30, like its identical federal counterpart, requires a timely objection to an instruction before a party “may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom_” The purpose of this requirement “is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any instructional defect and thereby avoid error which otherwise might necessitate a new trial.” Watts v. United States, supra, 362 A.2d at 708 (citations omitted); accord, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 387 A.2d 1084, 1089 (D.C.1978) (en banc).

1987Super.Ct.Crim.R. 30, like its identical federal counterpart, requires a timely objection to an instruction before a party "may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom...." The purpose of this requirement "is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any instructional defect and thereby avoid error which otherwise might necessitate a new trial." Watts v. United States, supra, 362 A.2d at 708 (citations omitted); accord, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 387 A.2d 1084, 1089 (D.C.1978) (en banc).

1987Super.Ct.Crim.R. 30, like its identical federal counterpart, requires a timely objection to an instruction before a party “may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom_” The purpose of this requirement “is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any instructional defect and thereby avoid error which otherwise might necessitate a new trial.” Watts v. United States, supra, 362 A.2d at 708 (citations omitted); accord, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 387 A.2d 1084, 1089 (D.C.1978) (en banc).

1987Super.Ct.Crim.R. 30, like its identical federal counterpart, requires a timely objection to an instruction before a party "may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom...." The purpose of this requirement "is to afford the trial court an opportunity to correct any instructional defect and thereby avoid error which otherwise might necessitate a new trial." Watts v. United States, supra, 362 A.2d at 708 (citations omitted); accord, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 387 A.2d 1084, 1089 (D.C.1978) (en banc).