Opinion ID: 1209844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Altered Chair in the Courtroom

Text: Defendants brought the altered chair into the courtroom for demonstrative purposes. Plaintiffs did not object when the chair was brought in, but did inquire later whether Defendants would remove the chair. The altered chair, however, remained in the courtroom, because Defendants represented that they intended to use it during closing arguments. Because Plaintiffs did not object to the introduction of the chair, or to having the chair remain in the courtroom, they ask us to find plain error. HRE Rule 103(a) (1985). [9] The facts simply do not establish plain error. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants repeatedly reiterated that the chair had been altered and that it was missing the original seat and the aluminum bars. The simple fact that the chair remained in the courtroom was not so prejudicial that it affected Plaintiffs' substantial rights.