Opinion ID: 2518822
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the court of appeals applied the correct burden

Text: ¶22 The third step in the plain error analysis followed by the court of appeals is to evaluate whether or not the defendant has established that the obvious error was harmful. We have required that the defendant show that the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined. [14] ¶23 The State expresses the concern on certiorari that by the language employed in the opinion of the court of appeals, they have modified this burden to one of requiring the State to show that a better result would not have occurred, absent the error. [15] While such a reading is possible, in isolation, it is clear that the court of appeals applied the correct standard in its assessment of harmfulness of the error. The court twice stated the correct standard. [16] The court of appeals also clearly applied the correct standard when it analyzed the trial court's questioning, concluding that its confidence in the verdict had been undermined. [17] To the extent that the court of appeals' statement suggests that the State must prove certainty of the same outcome absent the judge's intervention, we disavow it as a standard for establishing plain error. The defendant still has the burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome.