Abstract
It is a general rule in the judicial system that any issues to be argued on appeal must first be raised in the court below. However, sometimes circumstances arise where despite counsel's failure to make proper objections, the appeal should be heard to further the interests of justice. The plain error doctrine is one of the tools that Utah appellate courts use to allow issues to be raised for the first time on appeal. Yet, in spite of the fact that the plain error doctrine has been recognized in Utah for over sixty years, Utah courts have had difficulty using it consistently and properly. Finally, the Utah Supreme Court has clarified the doctrine, but a great deal of confusion remains regarding the so-called "invited errors" and the role of the trial court judge in the plain error doctrine. This Comment will discuss the plain error doctrine in Utah by: first, providing the background of the doctrine, including the invited error doctrine; second, analyzing the plain error doctrine as it exists today; third, demonstrating the current state of the doctrine and providing conclusions; and finally, this Comment will make several recommendations for improvements. Some aspects of the plain error doctrine contradict the basic tenets of the modem adversarial system, especially those aspects dealing with invited errors and judicial intervention to prevent plain errors. Thus, this Comment will begin with a brief review of the modem adversarial system and the role of judicial intervention in this system.
Recommended Citation
Labrum, Robert J.
(2001)
"History and Application of the Plain Error
Doctrine in Utah,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2000:
No.
3, Article 3.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2000/iss3/3