defendant establishes obvious error in North Dakota

2014“To establish obvious error, a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Wegley, 2008 ND 4, ¶ 14 , 744 N.W.2d 284 . “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Paul, 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 .

2014“To establish obvious error, a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Wegley, 2008 ND 4, ¶ 14 , 744 N.W.2d 284 . “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Paul, 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 .

2014“To establish obvious error, a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Wegley, 2008 ND 4, ¶ 14 , 744 N.W.2d 284 . “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Paul, 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 .

2014“To establish obvious error, a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Wegley , 2008 ND 4, ¶ 14 , 744 N.W.2d 284 . “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Paul , 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 .

2014“To establish obvious error, a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Wegley, 2008 ND 4, ¶ 14 , 744 N.W.2d 284 . “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Paul, 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 .

2014“To establish obvious error, a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Wegley , 2008 ND 4, ¶ 14 , 744 N.W.2d 284 . “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Paul , 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 .

2011“If a defendant fails to object, the failure operates as a waiver of the issue on appeal unless the defendant establishes obvious error.” State v. Fickert, 2010 ND 61, ¶ 7 , 780 N.W.2d 670 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

2011“If a defendant fails to object, the failure operates as a waiver of the issue on appeal unless the defendant establishes obvious error.” State v. Fickert, 2010 ND 61, ¶ 7 , 780 N.W.2d 670 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

2011“To establish obvious error, the defendant must show: (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) affects substantial rights.” Fickert , at ¶ 7 (quoting State v. Demarais, 2009 ND 143, ¶ 17 , 770 N.W.2d 246 ).

2011“To establish obvious error, the defendant must show: (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) affects substantial rights.” Fickert , at ¶ 7 (quoting State v. Demarais, 2009 ND 143, ¶ 17 , 770 N.W.2d 246 ).

2019If the defendant establishes obvious error, an appellate court has discretion whether to correct the error "and should correct it if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' " State v. Olander , 1998 ND 50 , ¶ 16, 575 N.W.2d 658 . [¶25] Under Waller and this Court's public trial decisions, the second trial closure without pre-closure findings was a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule; thus it was an error that was plain.

2019If the defendant establishes obvious error, an appellate court has discretion whether to correct the error "and should correct it if it 'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' " State v. Olander , 1998 ND 50 , ¶ 16, 575 N.W.2d 658 . [¶25] Under Waller and this Court's public trial decisions, the second trial closure without pre-closure findings was a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule; thus it was an error that was plain.

2014Even if the defendant establishes obvious error, it is within the appellate court’s discretion to determine whether to correct it; such discretion should be exercised “only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

2014“We will not find obvious error unless an appellant meets the burden of showing: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’” Doppler , 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 (quoting State v. Doll , 2012 ND 32, ¶ 11 , 812 N.W.2d 381 ). “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Roe , 2014 ND 104, ¶ 10 , 846 N.W.2d 707 (quoting State v. Paul , 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 ). [¶20] Boulduc arg

2014“We will not find obvious error unless an appellant meets the burden of showing: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’ ” Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 (quoting State v. Doll, 2012 ND 32, ¶ 11 , 812 N.W.2d 381 ). “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Roe, 2014 ND 104, ¶ 10 , 846 N.W.2d 707 (quoting State v. Paul, 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 ). [¶ 20] Boulduc argue

2014“We will not find obvious error unless an appellant meets the burden of showing: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’” Doppler , 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 (quoting State v. Doll , 2012 ND 32, ¶ 11 , 812 N.W.2d 381 ). “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Roe , 2014 ND 104, ¶ 10 , 846 N.W.2d 707 (quoting State v. Paul , 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 ). [¶20] Boulduc arg

2014“We will not find obvious error unless an appellant meets the burden of showing: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’ ” Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 (quoting State v. Doll, 2012 ND 32, ¶ 11 , 812 N.W.2d 381 ). “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Roe, 2014 ND 104, ¶ 10 , 846 N.W.2d 707 (quoting State v. Paul, 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 ). [¶ 20] Boulduc argue

2014“We will not find obvious error unless an appellant meets the burden of showing: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’” Doppler , 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 (quoting State v. Doll , 2012 ND 32, ¶ 11 , 812 N.W.2d 381 ). “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Roe , 2014 ND 104, ¶ 10 , 846 N.W.2d 707 (quoting State v. Paul , 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 ). [¶20] Boulduc arg

2014“We will not find obvious error unless an appellant meets the burden of showing: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’ ” Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 (quoting State v. Doll, 2012 ND 32, ¶ 11 , 812 N.W.2d 381 ). “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Roe, 2014 ND 104, ¶ 10 , 846 N.W.2d 707 (quoting State v. Paul, 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 ). [¶ 20] Boulduc argue

2014“We will not find obvious error unless an appellant meets the burden of showing: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’” Doppler , 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 (quoting State v. Doll , 2012 ND 32, ¶ 11 , 812 N.W.2d 381 ). “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Roe , 2014 ND 104, ¶ 10 , 846 N.W.2d 707 (quoting State v. Paul , 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 ). [¶20] Boulduc arg

2014“We will not find obvious error unless an appellant meets the burden of showing: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’ ” Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 (quoting State v. Doll, 2012 ND 32, ¶ 11 , 812 N.W.2d 381 ). “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Roe, 2014 ND 104, ¶ 10 , 846 N.W.2d 707 (quoting State v. Paul, 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 ). [¶ 20] Boulduc argue

2014“We will not find obvious error unless an appellant meets the burden of showing: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’” Doppler , 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 (quoting State v. Doll , 2012 ND 32, ¶ 11 , 812 N.W.2d 381 ). “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Roe , 2014 ND 104, ¶ 10 , 846 N.W.2d 707 (quoting State v. Paul , 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 ). [¶20] Boulduc arg

2014“We will not find obvious error unless an appellant meets the burden of showing: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’” Doppler , 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14 , 828 N.W.2d 502 (quoting State v. Doll , 2012 ND 32, ¶ 11 , 812 N.W.2d 381 ). “[E]ven if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Roe , 2014 ND 104, ¶ 10 , 846 N.W.2d 707 (quoting State v. Paul , 2009 ND 120, ¶ 11 , 769 N.W.2d 416 ). [¶20] Boulduc arg

2010State v. Bethke, 2009 ND 47, ¶ 25 , 763 N.W.2d 492 .

2010State v. Bethke, 2009 ND 47, ¶ 25 , 763 N.W.2d 492 .

2009State v. Hirschkom, 2002 ND 36, ¶ 22 , 640 N.W.2d 439 , overruled, on other grounds, State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 21 , 717 N.W.2d 558 . [¶ 12] Rule 803(24), N.D.R.Ev., provides a hearsay exception for a child’s out-of-court statements about sexual abuse: An out-of-court statement by a child under the age of 12 years about sexual abuse of that child or witnessed by that child is admissible as evidence (when not otherwise admissible under another hearsay exception) if: (a) The trial court finds, after hearing upon notice in advance of the trial of the sexual abuse issue, that the time, content,

2009State v. Hirschkom, 2002 ND 36, ¶ 22 , 640 N.W.2d 439 , overruled, on other grounds, State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 21 , 717 N.W.2d 558 . [¶ 12] Rule 803(24), N.D.R.Ev., provides a hearsay exception for a child’s out-of-court statements about sexual abuse: An out-of-court statement by a child under the age of 12 years about sexual abuse of that child or witnessed by that child is admissible as evidence (when not otherwise admissible under another hearsay exception) if: (a) The trial court finds, after hearing upon notice in advance of the trial of the sexual abuse issue, that the time, content,

2009An alleged error does not constitute obvious error unless it is a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law, State v. Krull, 2005 ND 63, ¶ 6 , 693 N.W.2d 631 , and even if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

2009An alleged error does not constitute obvious error unless it is a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law, State v. Krull, 2005 ND 63, ¶ 6 , 693 N.W.2d 631 , and even if the defendant establishes obvious error, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

2009State v. Hirschkom, 2002 ND 36, ¶ 22 , 640 N.W.2d 439 , overruled, on other grounds, State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 21 , 717 N.W.2d 558 . [¶ 12] Rule 803(24), N.D.R.Ev., provides a hearsay exception for a child’s out-of-court statements about sexual abuse: An out-of-court statement by a child under the age of 12 years about sexual abuse of that child or witnessed by that child is admissible as evidence (when not otherwise admissible under another hearsay exception) if: (a) The trial court finds, after hearing upon notice in advance of the trial of the sexual abuse issue, that the time, content,

2009State v. Hirschkom, 2002 ND 36, ¶ 22 , 640 N.W.2d 439 , overruled, on other grounds, State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 21 , 717 N.W.2d 558 . [¶ 12] Rule 803(24), N.D.R.Ev., provides a hearsay exception for a child’s out-of-court statements about sexual abuse: An out-of-court statement by a child under the age of 12 years about sexual abuse of that child or witnessed by that child is admissible as evidence (when not otherwise admissible under another hearsay exception) if: (a) The trial court finds, after hearing upon notice in advance of the trial of the sexual abuse issue, that the time, content,