plain error in Montana

2025Accord State v. Tadewalt, 2010 MT 177, ¶ 20 , 357 Mont. 208 , 237 P.3d 1273 (“[a] prerequisite to plain error review is that it be plain that there was error at trial”); Finley, 276 Mont. at 134 , 915 P.2d at 213 (“doctrine of plain error [is meant] to correct obvious, fundamental, constitutional, or substantial errors” (emphasis added)). 9 State v. Gunderson, 2010 MT 166, ¶ 100 , 357 Mont. 142 , 237 P.3d 74 ; State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 27 , 381 Mont. 472 , 362 P.3d 1126 (unlike where an assertion of error was preserved, and the State has the burden to show it was harmless).

2025Accord State v. Tadewalt, 2010 MT 177, ¶ 20 , 357 Mont. 208 , 237 P.3d 1273 (“[a] prerequisite to plain error review is that it be plain that there was error at trial”); Finley, 276 Mont. at 134 , 915 P.2d at 213 (“doctrine of plain error [is meant] to correct obvious, fundamental, constitutional, or substantial errors” (emphasis added)). 9 State v. Gunderson, 2010 MT 166, ¶ 100 , 357 Mont. 142 , 237 P.3d 74 ; State v. Favel, 2015 MT 336, ¶ 27 , 381 Mont. 472 , 362 P.3d 1126 (unlike where an assertion of error was preserved, and the State has the burden to show it was harmless).

2026She did not ask to continue the hearing or register an objection on the record that has been presented to this Court. ¶27 In rare cases, we will apply the plain-error doctrine to review unpreserved claims that implicate a party’s “fundamental constitutional rights and where failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Lawrence, 2016 MT 346, ¶ 9 , 386 Mont. 86 , 385 P.3d 968 (citations and quotations omitted).

2026She did not ask to continue the hearing or register an objection on the record that has been presented to this Court. ¶27 In rare cases, we will apply the plain-error doctrine to review unpreserved claims that implicate a party’s “fundamental constitutional rights and where failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Lawrence, 2016 MT 346, ¶ 9 , 386 Mont. 86 , 385 P.3d 968 (citations and quotations omitted).

2010Montana Citizens v. Waltermire, 227 Mont. 85, 93 , 738 P.2d 1255, 1260 (1987) (quoting State ex rel.

2010Montana Citizens v. Waltermire, 227 Mont. 85, 93 , 738 P.2d 1255, 1260 (1987) (quoting State ex rel.

2021Under the plain error doctrine, however, we may invoke discretionary review “in situations that implicate a defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights when failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274, ¶ 17 , 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 (citing State v. Daniels, 2003 MT 247, ¶ 20 , 317 Mont. 331 , 77 P.3d 224 ).

2021Under the plain error doctrine, however, we may invoke discretionary review “in situations that implicate a defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights when failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274, ¶ 17 , 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 (citing State v. Daniels, 2003 MT 247, ¶ 20 , 317 Mont. 331 , 77 P.3d 224 ).

2024“The purpose of the plain error doctrine is to correct an error not objected to at trial that affects the ‘fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Lawrence, ¶ 9 (quoting State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 134 , 915 P.2d 208 , 5 213 (1996) overruled on other grounds State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215 , 19 P.3d 817 ). ¶13 “If a prosecutor’s improper comments prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair trial, then the proper remedy is reversal.” State v. Lindberg, 2008 MT 389, ¶ 25 , 347 Mont. 76 , 196 P.3d 1252 (quotation omitted).

2024“The purpose of the plain error doctrine is to correct an error not objected to at trial that affects the ‘fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Lawrence, ¶ 9 (quoting State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 134 , 915 P.2d 208 , 5 213 (1996) overruled on other grounds State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215 , 19 P.3d 817 ). ¶13 “If a prosecutor’s improper comments prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair trial, then the proper remedy is reversal.” State v. Lindberg, 2008 MT 389, ¶ 25 , 347 Mont. 76 , 196 P.3d 1252 (quotation omitted).

2026Rather, for plain error review to be warranted, a defendant must “(1) show that the claimed error implicates a fundamental right,” and “(2) ‘firmly convince’ this Court that failure to review the claimed error would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Norman, 2010 MT 253, ¶ 17 , 358 Mont. 252 , 244 P.3d 737 (quoting State v. Taylor, 2010 MT 94, ¶ 17 , 356 Mont. 167 , 231 P.3d 79 ). ¶29 Therefore, under the plain error doctrine, with regard to

2026Rather, for plain error review to be warranted, a defendant must “(1) show that the claimed error implicates a fundamental right,” and “(2) ‘firmly convince’ this Court that failure to review the claimed error would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Norman, 2010 MT 253, ¶ 17 , 358 Mont. 252 , 244 P.3d 737 (quoting State v. Taylor, 2010 MT 94, ¶ 17 , 356 Mont. 167 , 231 P.3d 79 ). ¶29 Therefore, under the plain error doctrine, with regard to

2026In our discretion, however, we may invoke the plain-error doctrine to review unpreserved issues that “implicate a defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights when failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Aker, 2013 MT 253, ¶ 21 , 371 Mont. 491 , 310 P.3d 506 (quoting McDonald, ¶ 8); see also M.

2026In our discretion, however, we may invoke the plain-error doctrine to review unpreserved issues that “implicate a defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights when failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Aker, 2013 MT 253, ¶ 21 , 371 Mont. 491 , 310 P.3d 506 (quoting McDonald, ¶ 8); see also M.

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

2025Invoking the plain error doctrine is discretionary and may be exercised in situations that “implicate a defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights when failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274, ¶ 17 , 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 . “[W]e employ the doctrine sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of circumstances of each case,” and, accordingly, “[t]he party requesting

2025Invoking the plain error doctrine is discretionary and may be exercised in situations that “implicate a defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights when failing to review the alleged error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274, ¶ 17 , 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 . “[W]e employ the doctrine sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of circumstances of each case,” and, accordingly, “[t]he party requesting

2026Thus, we consider the issues raised by Stinger “with the apposite circumspection to determine whether [he] has made the case for our discretionary review.” See Strizich, ¶ 33. ¶28 We will only invoke the plain error doctrine to correct an unpreserved error if the error “affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Burrington, ¶ 30 (quoting State v. Akers, 2017 MT 311, ¶ 10 , 389 Mont. 531 , 408 P.3d 142 ).

2026Thus, we consider the issues raised by Stinger “with the apposite circumspection to determine whether [he] has made the case for our discretionary review.” See Strizich, ¶ 33. ¶28 We will only invoke the plain error doctrine to correct an unpreserved error if the error “affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Burrington, ¶ 30 (quoting State v. Akers, 2017 MT 311, ¶ 10 , 389 Mont. 531 , 408 P.3d 142 ).

2023During the restitution hearing, the District Court considered Arthun’s financial status and concluded the State had made a prima facie showing that Arthun had the ability to pay, asking Defense counsel, “Do you dispute that?” Defense counsel responded, “we will drop that.” Arthun emphasizes that Defense counsel also stated that Arthun “would certainly be able to afford some nominal fee” (emphasis added), but nonetheless the defense’s presentation at the restitution hearing included proposed alternative restitution amounts for the vehicles that were substantial, such as the $3,456.91 it propose

2023During the restitution hearing, the District Court considered Arthun’s financial status and concluded the State had made a prima facie showing that Arthun had the ability to pay, asking Defense counsel, “Do you dispute that?” Defense counsel responded, “we will drop that.” Arthun emphasizes that Defense counsel also stated that Arthun “would certainly be able to afford some nominal fee” (emphasis added), but nonetheless the defense’s presentation at the restitution hearing included proposed alternative restitution amounts for the vehicles that were substantial, such as the $3,456.91 it propose

2024“The purpose of the plain error doctrine is to correct an error not objected to at trial that affects the ‘fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Lawrence, ¶ 9 (quoting State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 134 , 915 P.2d 208 , 5 213 (1996) overruled on other grounds State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215 , 19 P.3d 817 ). ¶13 “If a prosecutor’s improper comments prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair trial, then the proper remedy is reversal.” State v. Lindberg, 2008 MT 389, ¶ 25 , 347 Mont. 76 , 196 P.3d 1252 (quotation omitted).

2024“The purpose of the plain error doctrine is to correct an error not objected to at trial that affects the ‘fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Lawrence, ¶ 9 (quoting State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 134 , 915 P.2d 208 , 5 213 (1996) overruled on other grounds State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, ¶ 21 , 304 Mont. 215 , 19 P.3d 817 ). ¶13 “If a prosecutor’s improper comments prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair trial, then the proper remedy is reversal.” State v. Lindberg, 2008 MT 389, ¶ 25 , 347 Mont. 76 , 196 P.3d 1252 (quotation omitted).

2026Rather, for plain error review to be warranted, a defendant must “(1) show that the claimed error implicates a fundamental right,” and “(2) ‘firmly convince’ this Court that failure to review the claimed error would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Norman, 2010 MT 253, ¶ 17 , 358 Mont. 252 , 244 P.3d 737 (quoting State v. Taylor, 2010 MT 94, ¶ 17 , 356 Mont. 167 , 231 P.3d 79 ). ¶29 Therefore, under the plain error doctrine, with regard to

2026Rather, for plain error review to be warranted, a defendant must “(1) show that the claimed error implicates a fundamental right,” and “(2) ‘firmly convince’ this Court that failure to review the claimed error would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, leave unsettled the question of fundamental fairness of the trial or proceedings, or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Norman, 2010 MT 253, ¶ 17 , 358 Mont. 252 , 244 P.3d 737 (quoting State v. Taylor, 2010 MT 94, ¶ 17 , 356 Mont. 167 , 231 P.3d 79 ). ¶29 Therefore, under the plain error doctrine, with regard to

2013“A mere assertion that failure to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice . . . is not sufficient to implicate the plain error doctrine.” State v. Rovin, 2009 MT 16, ¶ 29 , 349 Mont. 57 , 201 P.3d 780 . ¶10 Father’s argument for applying plain error review is hindered by his admission that he was served with the first scheduled date and time of the termination hearing.

2013“A mere assertion that failure to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice . . . is not sufficient to implicate the plain error doctrine.” State v. Rovin, 2009 MT 16, ¶ 29 , 349 Mont. 57 , 201 P.3d 780 . ¶10 Father’s argument for applying plain error review is hindered by his admission that he was served with the first scheduled date and time of the termination hearing.

2009We explained in State v. Mackrill, 2008 MT 297, ¶ 48 , 345 Mont. 469, ¶ 48 , 191 P.3d 451, ¶ 48 , that “we use our inherent power of common-law plain error review sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, and only in the aforementioned circumstances.” A mere assertion that failure to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, however, is not sufficient to implicate the plain error doctrine.

2009We explained in State v. Mackrill, 2008 MT 297, ¶ 48 , 345 Mont. 469, ¶ 48 , 191 P.3d 451, ¶ 48 , that “we use our inherent power of common-law plain error review sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, and only in the aforementioned circumstances.” A mere assertion that failure to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, however, is not sufficient to implicate the plain error doctrine.

2004The errors, he alleges, are identical. ¶35 Godfrey claims that his failure to object at trial should not prevent him from seeking relief under the doctrine of plain error, and directs our attention to similarities between his case and State v. Sullivan (1996), 280 Mont. 25 , 927 P.2d 1033 .

2004The errors, he alleges, are identical. ¶35 Godfrey claims that his failure to object at trial should not prevent him from seeking relief under the doctrine of plain error, and directs our attention to similarities between his case and State v. Sullivan (1996), 280 Mont. 25 , 927 P.2d 1033 .