plain error in Texas

2015Ctr., 169 N.J. 481 , 779 A.2d 1078, 1085 (2001) (the standard for plain error is whether error had clear capacity for producing unjust result); Chavez v. Board of County Comm'rs., 130 N.M. 753 , 31 P.3d 1027, 1039 (Ct.App.2001) (fundamental error applies, for example, when there is no jurisdiction or issue is a matter of public interest affecting large number of people); Elezaj v. P.J.

2015Ctr., 169 N.J. 481 , 779 A.2d 1078, 1085 (2001) (the standard for plain error is whether error had clear capacity for producing unjust result); Chavez v. Board of County Comm'rs., 130 N.M. 753 , 31 P.3d 1027, 1039 (Ct.App.2001) (fundamental error applies, for example, when there is no jurisdiction or issue is a matter of public interest affecting large number of people); Elezaj v. P.J.

2015Ctr., 169 N.J. 481 , 779 A.2d 1078, 1085 (2001) (the standard for plain error is whether error had clear capacity for producing unjust result); Chavez v. Board of County Comm'rs., 130 N.M. 753 , 31 P.3d 1027, 1039 (Ct.App.2001) (fundamental error applies, for example, when there is no jurisdiction or issue is a matter of public interest affecting large number of people); Elezaj v. P.J.

2015Ctr., 169 N.J. 481 , 779 A.2d 1078, 1085 (2001) (the standard for plain error is whether error had clear capacity for producing unjust result); Chavez v. Board of County Comm'rs., 130 N.M. 753 , 31 P.3d 1027, 1039 (Ct.App.2001) (fundamental error applies, for example, when there is no jurisdiction or issue is a matter of public interest affecting large number of people); Elezaj v. P.J.

2014Henderson , 133 S. Ct. at 1126 (regarding the plain error doctrine: "Even where a new rule of law is at issue, Rule 52(b) does not give a court of appeals authority to overlook a failure to object unless an error not only affects substantial rights but also seriously affect[s the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.") (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); Powell v. Nevada , 511 U.S. 79, 84-85 (1994) ("It does not necessarily follow . . . that Powell must be set free, or gain other relief, for several questions remain open for decision on remand.

2014Henderson, 133 S.Ct. at 1126 (regarding the plain error doctrine: "Even where a new rule of law is at issue, Rule 52(b) does not give a court of appeals authority to overlook a failure to object unless an error not only affects substantial rights but also seriously affectfs the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79, 84-85 , 114 S.Ct. 1280 , 128 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994) ("It does not necessarily follow ... that Powell must be set free, or gain other relief, for several questions remain open for

2010See also United States v. James, 353 F.3d 606, 613, 615 (8th Cir.2003) (holding that the determination of whether there was joint access and control for actual authority is a fact question reviewed under the plain-error standard but a determination of whether the government reasonably relied on a third party's consent is a question of law to be reviewed de novo ); United States v. Stewart, 93 F.3d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that "[o]bjective reasonableness is a question of law reviewed de novo " when scope of consent given is the issue on review). [15] St.

2010See also United States v. James, 353 F.3d 606, 613, 615 (8th Cir.2003) (holding that the determination of whether there was joint access and control for actual authority is a fact question reviewed under the plain-error standard but a determination of whether the government reasonably relied on a third party’s consent is a question of law to be reviewed de novo); United States v. Stewart, 93 F.3d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that "[ojbjective reasonableness is a question of law reviewed de novo " when scope of consent given is the issue on review). .

2010See also United States v. James, 353 F.3d 606, 613, 615 (8th Cir.2003) (holding that the determination of whether there was joint access and control for actual authority is a fact question reviewed under the plain-error standard but a determination of whether the government reasonably relied on a third party's consent is a question of law to be reviewed de novo ); United States v. Stewart, 93 F.3d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that "[o]bjective reasonableness is a question of law reviewed de novo " when scope of consent given is the issue on review). [15] St.

2010See also United States v. James, 353 F.3d 606, 613, 615 (8th Cir.2003) (holding that the determination of whether there was joint access and control for actual authority is a fact question reviewed under the plain-error standard but a determination of whether the government reasonably relied on a third party’s consent is a question of law to be reviewed de novo); United States v. Stewart, 93 F.3d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that "[ojbjective reasonableness is a question of law reviewed de novo " when scope of consent given is the issue on review). .

2025App. 2000). 69 Id. at 238 . 70 United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 263 (2010). 71 People v. Davis, 509 Mich. 52 , 73-76 (2022) (recognizing “a formal rebuttable presumption” in the plain-error standard for forfeited structural errors).

2025App. 2000). 69 Id. at 238 . 70 United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 263 (2010). 71 People v. Davis, 509 Mich. 52 , 73-76 (2022) (recognizing “a formal rebuttable presumption” in the plain-error standard for forfeited structural errors).

2019Although I acknowledged “the value of stare decisis,” I thought that Cathey “may be one of those rare cases where stare decisis should not ‘induce us, despite the plain error of the case, to leave bad enough alone.’” Id. at 802 (BOYD, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681, 703 (1987)).

2019Although I acknowledged "the value of stare decisis," I thought that Cathey "may be one of those rare cases where stare decisis should not 'induce us, despite the plain error of the case, to leave bad enough alone.' " Id. at 802 (BOYD, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Johnson , 481 U.S. 681 , 703, 107 S.Ct. 2063 , 95 L.Ed.2d 648 (1987) ).

2015See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 394 (1979) (statute that criminalized killing a viable fetus held unconstitutionally vague where no scienter was required with respect to fetus’s viability, thus creating “a trap for those who act in good faith”); Long, 931 S.W.2d 285 at 290 (striking down harassment statute as unconstitutionally vague in part because statutory requirement of a police report “does little or nothing to inform an ordinary person that his conduct is forbidden because the subsection contains no culpable mental state”; “[t]he wording of the statute does not require the defend

2015See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 395 (1979) (statute that criminalized killing a viable fetus held unconstitutionally vague where no scienter was required with respect to fetus’s viability, thus creating “a trap for those who act in good faith”); Long, 931 S.W.2d 285 at 290 (striking down harassment statute as unconstitutionally vague in part because statutory requirement of a police report “does little or nothing to inform an ordinary person that his conduct is forbidden because the subsection contains no culpable mental state”; “[t]he wording of the statute does not require the defend

2015See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 394 (1979) (statute that criminalized killing a viable fetus held unconstitutionally vague where no scienter was required with respect to fetus’s viability, thus creating “a trap for those who act in good faith”); Long, 931 S.W.2d 285 at 290 (striking down harassment statute as unconstitutionally vague in part because statutory requirement of a police report “does little or nothing to inform an ordinary person that his conduct is forbidden because the subsection contains no culpable mental state”; “[t]he wording of the statute does not require the defend

2015See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 395 (1979) (statute that criminalized killing a viable fetus held unconstitutionally vague where no scienter was required with respect to fetus’s viability, thus creating “a trap for those who act in good faith”); Long, 931 S.W.2d 285 at 290 (striking down harassment statute as unconstitutionally vague in part because statutory requirement of a police report “does little or nothing to inform an ordinary person that his conduct is forbidden because the subsection contains no culpable mental state”; “[t]he wording of the statute does not require the defend

2007Under the plain error doctrine, the record must contain "(1) 'error,' (2) that is 'plain,' . . . (3) that 'affects substantial rights,'" and "(4) the error 'seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997) (citations omitted). 6.

2003Under the plain error doctrine, the record must contain "(1) 'error,' (2) that is 'plain,' . . . (3) that 'affects substantial rights,'" and "(4) the error 'seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997) (citations omitted). 6.

2007United States v. Saenz , 134 F.3d 697, 714 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Slone , 833 F.2d 595, 598 (6th Cir. 1987); see Fed.

2003United States v. Saenz , 134 F.3d 697, 714 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Slone , 833 F.2d 595, 598 (6th Cir. 1987); see Fed.

2007United States v. Saenz , 134 F.3d 697, 714 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Slone , 833 F.2d 595, 598 (6th Cir. 1987); see Fed.

2003United States v. Saenz , 134 F.3d 697, 714 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Slone , 833 F.2d 595, 598 (6th Cir. 1987); see Fed.

2019Although I acknowledged “the value of stare decisis,” I thought that Cathey “may be one of those rare cases where stare decisis should not ‘induce us, despite the plain error of the case, to leave bad enough alone.’” Id. at 802 (BOYD, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681, 703 (1987)).

2019Although I acknowledged "the value of stare decisis," I thought that Cathey "may be one of those rare cases where stare decisis should not 'induce us, despite the plain error of the case, to leave bad enough alone.' " Id. at 802 (BOYD, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Johnson , 481 U.S. 681 , 703, 107 S.Ct. 2063 , 95 L.Ed.2d 648 (1987) ).

2015Plain error is error that is "clear" or "obvious" and affects the defendant's Nsubstantial rights"v Olano, 507 U.S. at 732 - 735.

2015U.S. v. OLANO, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993); U.S. v. TUCKER, 345 F. 3d 320, 334 (5th.

2014Henderson, 133 S.Ct. at 1126 (regarding the plain error doctrine: "Even where a new rule of law is at issue, Rule 52(b) does not give a court of appeals authority to overlook a failure to object unless an error not only affects substantial rights but also seriously affectfs the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79, 84-85 , 114 S.Ct. 1280 , 128 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994) ("It does not necessarily follow ... that Powell must be set free, or gain other relief, for several questions remain open for

2014Henderson, 133 S.Ct. at 1126 (regarding the plain error doctrine: "Even where a new rule of law is at issue, Rule 52(b) does not give a court of appeals authority to overlook a failure to object unless an error not only affects substantial rights but also seriously affectfs the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted); Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79, 84-85 , 114 S.Ct. 1280 , 128 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994) ("It does not necessarily follow ... that Powell must be set free, or gain other relief, for several questions remain open for

2013Furthermore, appellant’s brief and oral argument cites the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’s opinion in Sawyer v. Butler to argue that, under Caldwell, such errors need not be preserved at trial because the “essence of the doctrine of plain error is that a loss of fundamental rights outweighs the values behind the rules insisting upon an objection.” Sawyer v. Butler, 881 F.2d 1273 , 1285–86 (5th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).

2013Furthermore, appellant's brief and oral argument cites the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals's opinion in Sawyer v. Butler to argue that, under Caldwell , such errors need not be preserved at trial because the "essence of the doctrine of plain error is that a loss of fundamental rights outweighs the values behind the rules insisting upon an objection." Sawyer v. Butler , 881 F.2d 1273, 1285-86 (5th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).

2021Smith v. United States, 343 F.2d 539, 542 (5th Cir. 1965).

2019E.g., Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993); Vazquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263-64 (1986) (gathering examples). 4 People v. Bezon, 2018 Guam 28 , 20 (Guam Dec. 31, 2018) (holding the trial court committed plain error when it failed to personally address Bezon and failed to ask him whether he wished to make a statement before pronouncing the sentence); State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 475 , 348 P.3d 1, 90 (2015) (“we review this issue for fundamental error”); State v. Jones, 232 N.J. 308, 319 , 180 A.3d 288, 295 (2018) (“When a trial court fails to afford a defendant the opportunity to

2019E.g., Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993); Vazquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263-64 (1986) (gathering examples). 4 People v. Bezon, 2018 Guam 28 , 20 (Guam Dec. 31, 2018) (holding the trial court committed plain error when it failed to personally address Bezon and failed to ask him whether he wished to make a statement before pronouncing the sentence); State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 475 , 348 P.3d 1, 90 (2015) (“we review this issue for fundamental error”); State v. Jones, 232 N.J. 308, 319 , 180 A.3d 288, 295 (2018) (“When a trial court fails to afford a defendant the opportunity to

2019E.g., Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993); Vazquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263-64 (1986) (gathering examples). 4 People v. Bezon, 2018 Guam 28 , 20 (Guam Dec. 31, 2018) (holding the trial court committed plain error when it failed to personally address Bezon and failed to ask him whether he wished to make a statement before pronouncing the sentence); State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 475 , 348 P.3d 1, 90 (2015) (“we review this issue for fundamental error”); State v. Jones, 232 N.J. 308, 319 , 180 A.3d 288, 295 (2018) (“When a trial court fails to afford a defendant the opportunity to

2019E.g., Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993); Vazquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263-64 (1986) (gathering examples). 4 People v. Bezon, 2018 Guam 28 , 20 (Guam Dec. 31, 2018) (holding the trial court committed plain error when it failed to personally address Bezon and failed to ask him whether he wished to make a statement before pronouncing the sentence); State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 475 , 348 P.3d 1, 90 (2015) (“we review this issue for fundamental error”); State v. Jones, 232 N.J. 308, 319 , 180 A.3d 288, 295 (2018) (“When a trial court fails to afford a defendant the opportunity to

2019Va. 578, 587 , 474 S.E.2d 508, 517 (1996) (“Where no objection to the denial of allocution was made at trial, the error is subject to review for plain error”). –2– on this subject and arrived at a variety of results.