 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bullock v. State6/27/2001
e explained the plain error standard as follows:
Under the plain error standard of review, the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process. Furthermore, the doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects which are apparent on the face of the record; which are basic, serious and fundamental in their character, and which clearly deprive an accused of a substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice.
The burden of showing plain error lies with the appellant. Even when an appellant has carried this burden, under the terms of Supreme Court Rule 8, we may exercise our discretion to decline to grant relief. We must eschew the temptation to exercise the clarity of vision that comes with 20/20 hindsight to say--except with extreme reluctance--that the trial judge must jump in, sua sponte, and do this or do that to save a litigant or a lawyer from allowing error to seep into a trial.
This is one of those rare cases where the judge had a heightened duty to "get it right" when settling on what to tell the jury about the law. The plain error jurisprudence has limits. I do not say that in every case a materially incorrect jury charge will constitute plain error per se. But certainly this is a case where we must find plain error.
Our plain error review must be applied in conjunction with the imperative that a jury be given clear and correct guidance. A defendant is "entitled" to a "correct statement of the substance of the law." We have stated that " he primary purpose of jury instructions is to define with particularity the factual issues, and clearly to instruct the jury as to the principles of law which they are to apply in deciding the factual issues involved in the case before them." Moreover, "jury instructions must be adapted to the factual situation of each case. In any criminal case, it is the duty of the jury to examine facts and assign to or eliminate criminal responsibility for specific individuals. The applicable principles of law and the identity of the persons involved must not be confused."
In Culver v. Bennett, a tort action, the appellants argued for the first time on appeal that the jury instructions had erroneously and confusingly "presented the jury with two separate and conflicting rules of legal causation": the "substantial factor rule" and the "but for" rule. Analyzing whether it was plain error to use the term "substantial factor" notwithstanding Delaware's "common law adherence to the 'but for' rule of proximate cause," this Court noted that "this case presents questions of first impression concerning the proper construction of Delaware's modified comparative negligence statute." The Court determined that under Delaware law "the use of the term 'substantial factor' was erroneous and a deficiency which undoubtedly undermined the jury's ability to intelligently perform its duty...." Similarly, in Probst v. State, the appellant argued for the first time on appeal that the jury instruction was inadequate because it confusingly used male pronouns to refer to a female defendant in a case in which the actions of the defendant's brother were also critical. Under plain error review, we found that the "jury instructions were erroneous as a matter of law."
There is tension between the plain error rule, which limits our review of objections not made at trial, and the principle that a defendant is entitled to a correct statement of the law. Application of the plain error rule will continue to rest on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. It is pertinent to note, however, as the majority does, that the tri
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|