Opinion ID: 2378197
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Crim. P. 52(b)

Text: Crim. P. 52(b) provides that [p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court. The concept of plain error is predicated on the idea that the trial court should have intervened sua sponte because the error was so obvious and prejudicial. People v. Mosley, 167 P.3d 157, 159 (Colo.App.2007) (citations omitted). A plain error so undermines the fundamental fairness of a proceeding that it casts serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction. People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743, 750 (Colo.2005). Crim. P. 52(b) is virtually identical to Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), which provides that a plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court's attention. Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), appellate courts may raise sua sponte a critical issue affecting substantial rights. E.g., King v. United States, 595 F.3d 844, 854 (8th Cir.2010). Although Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) is commonly understood to provide for sua sponte notice of critical issues by appellate courts, a trial court may also take notice of plain error on its own motion. E.g., United States v. Lawhorne, 29 F.Supp.2d 292, 313, 318 n. 42 (E.D.Va.1998)(Numerous decisions recognize that district courts are permitted to engage in plain error review and to determine whether a flaw in criminal proceedings was so patent as to warrant a new trial despite the absence of a timely objection by defense counsel.); see also Moland v. People, 757 P.2d 137, 141 (Colo.1988)(noting that issue was properly argued because trial court introduced issue at its own instance).