Eleanor Finch
In law, the standard of review is the degree of deference given by a higher court when reviewing a decision made by a lower court or tribunal. In the context of unpreserved constitutional errors, the standard of review determines whether an appellate court can review a lower court's decision that was not objected to as required by law. This is typically assessed through the plain error standard, which requires the appellant to establish that an error occurred, that it was clear and obvious, and that it affected their substantial rights or the outcome of the lower court proceedings.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition | An unpreserved constitutional error is a mistake made by a lower court that was not objected to as required by law. |
| Review | An appellate court may review an unpreserved constitutional error if it determines that the error was evident, obvious, and clear and materially prejudiced a substantial right. |
| Plain error standard | The plain error standard requires establishing that: (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain or clear and obvious; (3) the error affected substantial rights, i.e., the outcome of the lower court proceedings was affected; and (4) relief is warranted only when the error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. |
| Burden of proof | The burden of proof is on the party that failed to raise a timely objection to show that a plain error occurred. In some cases, the burden shifts to the government to show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Structural errors | Structural errors require automatic reversal and include the total deprivation of the right to trial counsel, an impartial judge, excluding grand jury members of the same race as the defendant, denial of the right to self-representation, denial of the right to a public trial, and a constitutionally improper reasonable doubt instruction. |
| Exceptions | In Florida, the plain error doctrine does not apply, and instead, the fundamental error exception is used for unpreserved errors. |
Explore related products
$124.42 $159.99
What You'll Learn
The meaning of standard of review
In law, the standard of review dictates the amount of deference given by an appellate court when reviewing a decision made by a lower court or tribunal. The standard of review may be set by statute or precedent (stare decisis). In the United States, the term "standard of review" has several different meanings in different contexts.
A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision. A high standard of review means that deference is accorded to the decision under review, so that it will not be disturbed just because the reviewing court might have decided the matter differently; it will be varied only if the higher court considers the decision to have obvious error.
In general civil cases, the Court of Appeals is required to "apply the raise-or-waive rule and, thus, the plain-error standard does not apply in those cases." However, “because of the potential criminal consequences for a respondent’s violation of a PPO, and the liberty interests at stake, plain-error review also applies to unpreserved issues in PPO proceedings,” even though PPO proceedings are civil in nature.
In the context of an unpreserved constitutional error, a plain-error analysis applies. This means that the appellate court may grant relief if the proponent of the error can satisfy the 'plain error' standard, which has four parts (the 'Carines prongs'):
- An error occurred
- The error was 'plain'—i.e. clear or obvious
- The error affected substantial rights—i.e. the outcome of the lower court proceedings was affected
- Relief is warranted only when the court determines that the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings
If the error is structural, automatic reversal is required. Structural errors include "the total deprivation of the right to trial counsel, an impartial judge, excluding grand jury members who are the same race as the defendant, denial of the right to self-representation, denial of the right to a public trial, and a constitutionally improper reasonable doubt instruction."
In the context of reviewing a law for its constitutionality, the standard of review concerns how much deference the judiciary should give the legislature (i.e. the federal Congress or state legislatures) in determining whether legislation is constitutional. Concerning constitutional questions, three basic standards of review exist: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.
The President's Commerce Secretary: Why This Role Matters
You may want to see also
The appellate court's discretion
The standard of review refers to the level of deference given by an appellate court when reviewing a decision made by a lower court or tribunal. In the context of unpreserved constitutional errors, the appellate court has discretion to correct plain errors that affect substantial rights. This means that the appellant must demonstrate that an error occurred, that the error was clear and obvious, and that it affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.
Another principle that guides the appellate court's discretion is the "raise-or-waive" rule. In general civil cases, the appellate court applies this rule, which means that the plain error standard does not apply. However, in certain cases with criminal consequences or liberty interests at stake, the plain error standard may be applied even in civil proceedings.
The appellate court also has the discretion to address unpreserved constitutional questions when no question of fact exists, and the interest of justice and judicial economy dictates that it should be addressed. For example, in STC, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, the appellate court addressed an unpreserved constitutional question because it was in the interest of justice and judicial economy to do so.
In conclusion, the appellate court's discretion in reviewing unpreserved constitutional errors is guided by legal principles, doctrines, and the nature of the error. The court has the discretion to correct plain errors that affect substantial rights and to address certain unpreserved constitutional questions. However, the court must also consider the specific circumstances of each case and apply the relevant legal standards accordingly.
Constitution of 1789: A New Era for America
You may want to see also
The burden of proof
- An error occurred;
- The error was "plain", "clear", or "obvious"; and
- The error affected substantial rights or prejudiced the outcome of the case.
In some cases, the burden may shift between the parties. For example, if the appellant can demonstrate that a plain error occurred, the burden may shift to the other party to show that the error was harmless.
In federal court, if a party fails to raise a timely objection and commits forfeiture of error, the burden of proof is on that party to show that plain error occurred. Similarly, in Michigan, the defendant has the burden of establishing a miscarriage of justice under a "more probable than not" standard for unpreserved errors.
It is important to note that the standard of review for unpreserved errors may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case. For example, in civil cases, courts are generally more reluctant to grant relief for plain error, as the plain-error standard does not apply in general civil cases. Instead, the "raise-or-waive" rule applies, which means that issues not raised at the trial level are typically considered waived on appeal.
Furthermore, the concept of "structural error" has been introduced to address errors that affect the framework of a criminal trial, rather than simply being an error in the trial process itself. These errors are considered so fundamental that they cannot be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and require automatic reversal. Examples include the total deprivation of the right to trial counsel, an impartial judge, or the right to a public trial.
In summary, the burden of proof for unpreserved constitutional errors typically falls on the appellant or defendant to demonstrate that a plain error occurred. However, the burden may shift depending on the specific circumstances and the jurisdiction, and certain errors may be considered structural errors requiring automatic reversal.
Wealthy in America: Defining the Upper Class
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The raise-or-waive rule
The rule dictates that only issues that have been properly preserved by the losing party while the case was pending before the trial court can be raised on appeal. This means that any objections must be raised at various stages of the lower court proceedings, including evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and motions for judgment as a matter of law. If an objection is not raised on the record, it is considered waived. The rationale behind this requirement is to allow the trial justice to make any necessary corrections to their instructions before the jury begins its deliberations.
The rule is considered fair to both the parties and the trial court, but finding an issue waived on appeal is a harsh remedy. As such, appellate courts should be cautious about expanding the rules that allow for a finding of waiver. There are some narrow exceptions to the raise-or-waive rule, and appellate courts may still address certain unpreserved issues in specific circumstances, such as when no question of fact exists and the interest of justice and judicial economy dictate otherwise.
J&K's Constitution: Secular or Sovereign?
You may want to see also
Plain error analysis
In the context of an unpreserved constitutional error, plain error analysis refers to the appellate court's discretionary review of a lower court's decision, even if no objection was raised at the time. This analysis is conducted to identify and rectify any evident, obvious, and clear mistakes that may have significantly impacted the outcome of the case.
The burden of proof lies with the appellant to demonstrate that a plain error occurred and that it resulted in material prejudice to their substantial rights. However, in cases where the error rises to the level of a constitutional violation, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
In federal court, if a party fails to raise a timely objection, they bear the burden of proof on appeal to demonstrate that a plain error occurred. Similarly, in state courts, such as Michigan, plain error analysis is applied to unpreserved issues, even in civil proceedings like PPO proceedings, due to the potential criminal consequences and liberty interests involved.
Overall, plain error analysis serves as a mechanism to address unpreserved constitutional errors, ensuring that any evident and obvious mistakes that affect substantial rights can be rectified, even if no objection was raised at the time of the lower court's decision.
The Constitution: A True Representation of the People?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
In law, the standard of review is the amount of deference given by one court or appellate tribunal when reviewing a decision of a lower court or tribunal. A low standard of review means that the decision under review will be varied or overturned if the reviewing court considers there is any error at all in the lower court's decision.
A "plain error" is a clear or obvious error that affects substantial rights. In federal court, if a party commits forfeiture of error, the burden of proof is on that party to show that plain error occurred.
The plain-error standard applies to both constitutional and nonconstitutional errors that are not preserved for appellate review. The appellant must establish that an error occurred, the error was plain, it affected substantial rights, and not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceeding.
In state court, the contemporaneous-objection rule applies, meaning that a party must make a specific, contemporaneous objection to the perceived error to preserve it for review and correction on appeal. The sole exception to this rule is where the unobjected-to error is fundamental in nature. In federal court, unobjected-to errors are reviewed for plain error.
In People v. Anderson (After Remand), the court held that the total deprivation of the right to trial counsel is a structural error that requires automatic reversal. Another example is where a jury instruction contains an error that is not material to what the jury must consider to convict the defendant of the charged crime.
