Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
45 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1907–2026 15 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Landrusgreen2 sentences2025Plain error is a “clear or obvious deviation from current law.” State v. Landrus, 2022 ND 107, ¶ 10 , 974 N.W.2d 676 (cleaned up). 2025Plain error is a “clear or obvious deviation from current law.” State v. Landrus, 2022 ND 107, ¶ 10 , 974 N.W.2d 676 (cleaned up). | 2 | 3 |
Rau v. Kirschenmangreen2 sentences2012For that reason we believe our Rule 51(c) should not be an absolute Rule and that provision should be made for relief from such Rule in limited circumstances.” But, even under our prior exception, the plain error review is limited: “only fundamental and highly prejudicial error in instructions will be reviewed by this [C]ourt in the absence of an objection in the trial court.” Rau , at 9. [¶16] Both our application and our limitation adopted in Rau are consistent with the prevailing federal court plain error analysis. 2012For that reason we believe our Rule 51(c) should not be an absolute Rule and that provision should be made for relief from such Rule in limited circumstances.” But, even under our prior exception, the plain error review is limited: “only fundamental and highly prejudicial error in instructions will be reviewed by this [C]ourt in the absence of an objection in the trial court.” Rau , at 9. [¶ 16] Both our application and our limitation adopted in Rau are consistent with the prevailing federal court plain error analysis. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2023See State v. Thompson, 2010 ND 10, ¶ 26 , 777 N.W.2d 617 . 2023See State v. Thompson, 2010 ND 10, ¶ 26 , 777 N.W.2d 617 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2023See State v. Thompson, 2010 ND 10, ¶ 26 , 777 N.W.2d 617 . 2023See State v. Thompson, 2010 ND 10, ¶ 26 , 777 N.W.2d 617 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smudagreen2 sentences1999“Our power to notice obvious error is exercised cautiously and only in exceptional situations where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Smuda , 419 N.W.2d 166, 168 (N.D. 1988) (citing State v. Miller , 388 N.W.2d 522 (N.D. 1986)). 1999“Our power to notice obvious error is exercised cautiously and only in exceptional situations where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Smuda, 419 N.W.2d 166, 168 (N.D.1988) (citing State v. Miller, 388 N.W.2d 522 (N.D.1986)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Olandergreen2 sentences2022See id. [¶11] This Court next must determine whether the plain error affected Landrus’ substantial rights. 2016In analyzing obvious error claims under North Dakota law, we have applied a plain error framework, explaining an appellate court may notice a claimed error that was not brought to the district court’s attention if there was “(1) error,. (2) that is plain, and (3) affects substantial rights.” State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50, ¶¶ 13-14 , 575 N.W.2d 658 . | 1 | 6 |
Johnson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1999The power should be exercised only where a serious injustice has been done to the defendant.” See also Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (concluding the failure to submit the issue of materiality in a perjury case to the jury was a plain error, but did not require reversal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) because the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (citation omitted) (recognizing an appellate court 1999The power should be exercised only where a serious injustice has been done to the defendant.” See also Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (concluding the failure to submit the issue of materiality in a perjury case to the jury was a plain error, but did not require reversal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) because the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (citation omitted) (recognizing an appellate court | 1 | 3 |
State v. Krullgreen2 sentences2019See Krull , 2005 ND 63 , ¶ 6, 693 N.W.2d 631 ("To establish obvious error, the defendant has the burden of showing (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.... [T]o affect the defendant's substantial rights, 'a plain error must have been prejudicial, or have affected the outcome of the proceeding.' "). [¶20] In Krull , 2005 ND 63 , ¶¶ 9-11, 693 N.W.2d 631 , we held that "[t]he trial court abused its discretion and committed plain error in admitting the hearsay statements without making 'specific findings of the facts relevant to reliability and trustworthiness' and 2019See Krull , 2005 ND 63 , ¶ 6, 693 N.W.2d 631 ("To establish obvious error, the defendant has the burden of showing (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.... [T]o affect the defendant's substantial rights, 'a plain error must have been prejudicial, or have affected the outcome of the proceeding.' "). [¶20] In Krull , 2005 ND 63 , ¶¶ 9-11, 693 N.W.2d 631 , we held that "[t]he trial court abused its discretion and committed plain error in admitting the hearsay statements without making 'specific findings of the facts relevant to reliability and trustworthiness' and | 1 | 2 |
Kareem Peterson v. Melvin Williamsgreen1 sentence2018Although our conclusion in Addai comports with the result under a triviality analysis, it appears our use of the plain error standard was incorrect. [¶14] The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial advances four essential values: “1) to ensure a fair trial;2) to remind the prosecutor and judge of their responsibility to the accused and the importance of their functions;3) to encourage witnesses to come forward; and4) to discourage perjury.” Peterson , 85 F.3d 39, 43 (2d Cir. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Javier Amayagreen1 sentence2018See Amaya , 731 F.3d at 765 (holding trial court did not abuse discretion in determining verdict form and substituted jury polling affected defendant's substantial rights). [¶ 17] Finally, the failure to exercise our discretion to correct the obvious error would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of criminal jury trials. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pattersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McCraygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ralph Melvin Johnson v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wegley
green
2 sentences2023“To affect substantial rights, a plain error must have been prejudicial, or have affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Wegley, 2008 ND 4, ¶ 14 , 744 N.W.2d 284 . [¶23] The first inquiry under the framework for obvious error is whether an error occurred. 2023“To affect substantial rights, a plain error must have been prejudicial, or have affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Wegley, 2008 ND 4, ¶ 14 , 744 N.W.2d 284 . [¶23] The first inquiry under the framework for obvious error is whether an error occurred. | 5 | 2021–2023 |
State v. Wegley
green
2 sentences2023“To affect substantial rights, a plain error must have been prejudicial, or have affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Wegley, 2008 ND 4, ¶ 14 , 744 N.W.2d 284 . [¶23] The first inquiry under the framework for obvious error is whether an error occurred. 2023“To affect substantial rights, a plain error must have been prejudicial, or have affected the outcome of the proceeding.” State v. Wegley, 2008 ND 4, ¶ 14 , 744 N.W.2d 284 . [¶23] The first inquiry under the framework for obvious error is whether an error occurred. | 5 | 2021–2023 |
State v. Pemberton
green
2 sentences2025State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . 2023 ND 227, ¶ 19 , 998 N.W.2d 817 . [¶5] We review a district court’s Waller findings for clear error. 2025State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . 2023 ND 227, ¶ 19 , 998 N.W.2d 817 . [¶5] We review a district court’s Waller findings for clear error. | 4 | 2022–2025 |
State v. Schasker
green
2 sentences2023State v. Schasker, 60 N.D. 462 , 235 N.W. 345 (N.D. 1931) (calling in jury after retirement and allowing court stenographer to read evidence from notes in absence of defendant in a felony prosecution was a plain violation of defendant’s constitutional rights under the North Dakota Constitution Article I, section 12 (previously, N.D. 2023State v. Schasker, 60 N.D. 462 , 235 N.W. 345 (N.D. 1931) (calling in jury after retirement and allowing court stenographer to read evidence from notes in absence of defendant in a felony prosecution was a plain violation of defendant’s constitutional rights under the North Dakota Constitution Article I, section 12 (previously, N.D. | 3 | 1988–2023 |
United States v. Olano
red
2 sentences1999The power should be exercised only where a serious injustice has been done to the defendant.” See also Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (concluding the failure to submit the issue of materiality in a perjury case to the jury was a plain error, but did not require reversal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) because the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (citation omitted) (recognizing an appellate court 1999The power should be exercised only where a serious injustice has been done to the defendant.” See also Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 469 , 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (concluding the failure to submit the issue of materiality in a perjury case to the jury was a plain error, but did not require reversal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) because the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (citation omitted) (recognizing an appellate court | 3 | 1999–2004 |
State v. Frederick
green
2 sentences2025State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . 2023 ND 227, ¶ 19 , 998 N.W.2d 817 . [¶5] We review a district court’s Waller findings for clear error. 2025State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . 2023 ND 227, ¶ 19 , 998 N.W.2d 817 . [¶5] We review a district court’s Waller findings for clear error. | 2 | 2023–2025 |
State v. Rende
green
2 sentences2023See Landrus, 2022 ND 107, ¶ 10 ; Rende, 2018 ND 56, ¶ 7 . [¶17] For a plain error to affect a defendant’s substantial rights, the error must have been prejudicial or affected the outcome of the proceeding. 2023See Landrus, 2022 ND 107, ¶ 10 ; Rende, 2018 ND 56, ¶ 7 . [¶17] For a plain error to affect a defendant’s substantial rights, the error must have been prejudicial or affected the outcome of the proceeding. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Blurton
green
2 sentences2019“To establish obvious error, a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Blurton, 2009 ND 144, ¶ 8 , 770 N.W.2d 231 . 2 [¶8] The appellants did not argue the obvious error exception and therefore did not show a plain error exists that affects substantial rights. 2019“To establish obvious error, a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Blurton, 2009 ND 144, ¶ 8 , 770 N.W.2d 231 . 2 [¶8] The appellants did not argue the obvious error exception and therefore did not show a plain error exists that affects substantial rights. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. David Dean Millard Julia Lynn Millard
green
2 sentences2013Id. 2013Id. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Allery
green
2 sentences2011As the Court said in State v. Allery , 322 N.W.2d 228 , 232 n.3 (N.D. 1982), “attorneys have the professional responsibility to request or object to specific instructions of points of law resulting from testimony or on developments during trial, Rule 30, NDRCrimP. 2011As the Court said in State v. Allery, 322 N.W.2d 228 , 232 n. 3 (N.D.1982), “attorneys have the professional responsibility to request or object to specific instructions of points of law resulting from testimony or on developments during trial, Rule 30, NDRCrimP. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences1999“Our power to notice obvious error is exercised cautiously and only in exceptional situations where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Smuda , 419 N.W.2d 166, 168 (N.D. 1988) (citing State v. Miller , 388 N.W.2d 522 (N.D. 1986)). 1999“Our power to notice obvious error is exercised cautiously and only in exceptional situations where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Smuda, 419 N.W.2d 166, 168 (N.D.1988) (citing State v. Miller, 388 N.W.2d 522 (N.D.1986)). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Blumler
green
1 sentence2026Blumler, 458 N.W.2d at 302 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Eckroth
neutral
2 sentences2025“Rule 52(b) provides a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal, and we exercise the power to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Eckroth, 2015 ND 40, ¶ 19 , 858 N.W.2d 908 (quoting State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶ 12 , 823 N.W.2d 774 ). “[T]he defendant has the burden to demonstrate a plain error which affected his substantial rights.” Id. [¶13] “The district court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing.” State v. Blue, 20 2025“Rule 52(b) provides a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal, and we exercise the power to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Eckroth, 2015 ND 40, ¶ 19 , 858 N.W.2d 908 (quoting State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶ 12 , 823 N.W.2d 774 ). “[T]he defendant has the burden to demonstrate a plain error which affected his substantial rights.” Id. [¶13] “The district court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing.” State v. Blue, 20 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Haney
green
2 sentences2025State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . 2023 ND 227, ¶ 19 , 998 N.W.2d 817 . [¶5] We review a district court’s Waller findings for clear error. 2025State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . 2023 ND 227, ¶ 19 , 998 N.W.2d 817 . [¶5] We review a district court’s Waller findings for clear error. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Tresenriter
green
1 sentence2025“Rule 52(b) provides a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal, and we exercise the power to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Eckroth, 2015 ND 40, ¶ 19 , 858 N.W.2d 908 (quoting State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶ 12 , 823 N.W.2d 774 ). “[T]he defendant has the burden to demonstrate a plain error which affected his substantial rights.” Id. [¶13] “The district court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing.” State v. Blue, 20 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Tresenriter
green
2 sentences2025“Rule 52(b) provides a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal, and we exercise the power to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Eckroth, 2015 ND 40, ¶ 19 , 858 N.W.2d 908 (quoting State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶ 12 , 823 N.W.2d 774 ). “[T]he defendant has the burden to demonstrate a plain error which affected his substantial rights.” Id. [¶13] “The district court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing.” State v. Blue, 20 2025“Rule 52(b) provides a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal, and we exercise the power to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Eckroth, 2015 ND 40, ¶ 19 , 858 N.W.2d 908 (quoting State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶ 12 , 823 N.W.2d 774 ). “[T]he defendant has the burden to demonstrate a plain error which affected his substantial rights.” Id. [¶13] “The district court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing.” State v. Blue, 20 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Blue
green
1 sentence2025“Rule 52(b) provides a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal, and we exercise the power to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Eckroth, 2015 ND 40, ¶ 19 , 858 N.W.2d 908 (quoting State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240, ¶ 12 , 823 N.W.2d 774 ). “[T]he defendant has the burden to demonstrate a plain error which affected his substantial rights.” Id. [¶13] “The district court is allowed the widest range of discretion in criminal sentencing.” State v. Blue, 20 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Pendleton
green
2 sentences2023State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . [¶20] In State v. Kollie, 2023 ND 152, ¶¶ 5-6 , we further explained our public- trial jurisprudence: “We have said that brief sidebars or bench conferences conducted during trial to address routine evidentiary or administrative issues outside the hearing of the jury ordinarily will not implicate the public trial right.” [State v. Pendleton, 2022 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 978 N.W.2d 641 .] “For example, routine evidentiary rulings, objection rulings, or ‘[m]atters tr 2023State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . [¶20] In State v. Kollie, 2023 ND 152, ¶¶ 5-6 , we further explained our public- trial jurisprudence: “We have said that brief sidebars or bench conferences conducted during trial to address routine evidentiary or administrative issues outside the hearing of the jury ordinarily will not implicate the public trial right.” [State v. Pendleton, 2022 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 978 N.W.2d 641 .] “For example, routine evidentiary rulings, objection rulings, or ‘[m]atters tr | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Kollie
green
1 sentence2023State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . [¶20] In State v. Kollie, 2023 ND 152, ¶¶ 5-6 , we further explained our public- trial jurisprudence: “We have said that brief sidebars or bench conferences conducted during trial to address routine evidentiary or administrative issues outside the hearing of the jury ordinarily will not implicate the public trial right.” [State v. Pendleton, 2022 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 978 N.W.2d 641 .] “For example, routine evidentiary rulings, objection rulings, or ‘[m]atters tr | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2023State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . [¶20] In State v. Kollie, 2023 ND 152, ¶¶ 5-6 , we further explained our public- trial jurisprudence: “We have said that brief sidebars or bench conferences conducted during trial to address routine evidentiary or administrative issues outside the hearing of the jury ordinarily will not implicate the public trial right.” [State v. Pendleton, 2022 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 978 N.W.2d 641 .] “For example, routine evidentiary rulings, objection rulings, or ‘[m]atters tr 2023State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8 , 930 N.W.2d 125 ; see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b); State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, ¶ 4 , 989 N.W.2d 504 . [¶20] In State v. Kollie, 2023 ND 152, ¶¶ 5-6 , we further explained our public- trial jurisprudence: “We have said that brief sidebars or bench conferences conducted during trial to address routine evidentiary or administrative issues outside the hearing of the jury ordinarily will not implicate the public trial right.” [State v. Pendleton, 2022 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 978 N.W.2d 641 .] “For example, routine evidentiary rulings, objection rulings, or ‘[m]atters tr | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Schmidkunz green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Hirschkorn green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Erickstad green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Vinson green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Black v. United States green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| E. Paul Black v. United States green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| State v. Thompson green | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| The People v. . Simeon Draper green | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.