Opinion ID: 1693796
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Plain Error Doctrine

Text: This state encourages litigants `to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around....' Grant, supra, 445 Mich. at 551, 520 N.W.2d 123. This Court disfavors consideration of unpreserved claims of error. In Grant, this Court discussed the standards for reviewing unpreserved claims of nonconstitutional error. We noted that a rule of automatic reversal would conflict with M.C.L. § 769.26; M.S.A. § 28.1096, which provides that judgments or verdicts shall not be reversed absent a miscarriage of justice. Grant, p. 543, 520 N.W.2d 123. We also observed that Michigan has long recognized the importance of preserving issues for appellate review. Id., pp. 546, 550-551, 520 N.W.2d 123. [6] The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged the importance of this policy and the right of the various states to impose preservation requirements. Id., pp. 546-547, 551, 520 N.W.2d 123, citing United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965); Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444, 64 S.Ct. 660, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). Trial is by far the best time to address a defendant's constitutional and nonconstitutional rights. Grant, supra, 445 Mich. at 551, 520 N.W.2d 123 (emphasis added). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a state's right to develop procedural rules that lead to issue forfeiture[ [7] ] even where the procedural rules implicate constitutional protections if the rules serve a legitimate state interest. Id., pp. 546-547, 520 N.W.2d 123. In Grant, this Court examined federal authority in adopting an issue forfeiture rule for unpreserved, nonconstitutional error. We relied primarily on the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). In Olano, the Supreme Court explained the plain error rule of F.R. Crim. P. 52(b), which provides: Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court. The Olano Court emphasized that a constitutional right may be forfeited by a party's failure to timely assert that right. Id., p. 731, 113 S.Ct. 1770. To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights. Id., pp. 731-734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. The third requirement generally requires a showing of prejudice, i.e., that the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings. Id., p. 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. It is the defendant rather than the Government who bears the burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice. Id. [8] Finally, once a defendant satisfies these three requirements, an appellate court must exercise its discretion in deciding whether to reverse. Reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error `seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings' independent of the defendant's innocence. Id., pp. 736-737, 113 S.Ct. 1770. In Grant, we found Olano persuasive in distinguishing between Michigan's issue preservation requirement and harmless error rule. Grant, supra, 445 Mich. at 552, 520 N.W.2d 123. [9] Accordingly, we applied the factors set forth in Olano to the question of nonconstitutional error presented in Grant. Id., pp. 552-554, 520 N.W.2d 123. We found that plain error occurred, but that it was not decisive of the outcome. Id.