Opinion ID: 2519950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Should the Error Have Been Obvious to the Trial Court?

Text: ¶ 44 The second element of the plain error test requires that the error be plain, manifest, or obvious to the trial court. See Powell, 872 P.2d at 1031; Verde, 770 P.2d at 122. In explaining this prong, we have held that [a]fter examining the record, an appellate court must be able to say `that it should have been obvious to a trial court that it was committing error.' Verde, 770 P.2d at 122 (quoting Eldredge, 773 P.2d at 35). In other words, given the circumstances, the trial court should have been aware that an error was being committed at the time. Id. at 122 n. 11 (citations omitted). ¶ 45 Given our footnote in Vigil indicating that  Maestas is still good law insofar as it authorizes prosecution for ... attempted murder under the intentional or knowing formulation of section 76-5-203(1)(a), 842 P.2d at 848 n. 5, we do not believe that the error was plain, manifest, or obvious. In denying Casey's motion for a new trial, the trial court was guided by our statement in Vigil and our holding in Maestas. When the court of appeals considered this issue, it also affirmed the trial court by relying on these same cases. Because of the confusion created by our prior decisions, especially by the footnote in Vigil, we cannot say that the error should have been plain or obvious to the trial court.