The Nebraska Supreme Court clarified the standard for finding plain error on appeal in *State v. Cristian E. Gonzalez Molina*, filed December 19, 2025. The decision establishes when appellate courts may address errors not raised at trial, balancing judicial efficiency with the need to protect the integrity of the legal process.
The court held that an appellate court may find plain error when an error unasserted or uncomplained of at trial is plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant's substantial right, and if left uncorrected, would damage the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. This standard requires courts to identify errors that are both obvious and significantly harmful.
According to the opinion, plain error is defined as error that is plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that leaving it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process. This definition emphasizes the serious nature of errors that warrant plain error review, focusing on those that threaten the fundamental fairness of judicial proceedings.
The court addressed the scope of appellate review under the plain error doctrine, stating that when reviewing proceedings for plain error, an appellate court is not constrained by the specific arguments raised in the briefs. However, the court clarified that appellate courts are not required to consider every error that may have occurred in the lower court, providing judges with discretion in their review.
The Nebraska Supreme Court emphasized that generally, an appellate court will find plain error only when a miscarriage of justice would otherwise occur. This standard sets a high bar for plain error review, ensuring that appellate courts intervene only in the most serious cases where fundamental fairness is at stake.
The decision also addressed the invited error doctrine in criminal cases. Under this principle, a defendant may not take advantage of an alleged error which the defendant invited the trial court to commit. This doctrine prevents defendants from strategically creating errors at trial and then claiming those errors on appeal.
The case originated in Lancaster County District Court before Judge Susan I. Strong and proceeded through the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals panel included Chief Judge Riedmann and Judges Arterburn and Pirtle. The case was docketed as No. S-24-697 in the Nebraska Supreme Court.
This ruling provides important guidance for both trial and appellate courts in Nebraska's judicial system. For trial courts, the decision reinforces the importance of avoiding obvious errors that could affect substantial rights. For appellate courts, it clarifies when intervention is appropriate even when errors were not preserved through proper objection at trial.
The plain error standard serves as a safety valve in the judicial system, allowing appellate courts to correct serious errors that would otherwise go uncorrected due to procedural defaults. However, the Nebraska Supreme Court's emphasis on limiting such review to cases involving miscarriages of justice ensures that the doctrine is not overused.
The invited error doctrine component of the ruling protects against strategic manipulation of the trial process. By preventing defendants from benefiting from errors they invited, the court maintains the integrity of trial proceedings and discourages gamesmanship.
For criminal defense attorneys, the decision clarifies that while appellate courts retain authority to address plain error, such review is limited to the most serious cases. This reinforces the importance of preserving issues through proper objection at trial rather than relying on plain error review.
Prosecutors benefit from the invited error clarification, which prevents defendants from strategically creating favorable trial errors. This doctrine ensures that trial strategy decisions carry consequences and prevents abuse of the appellate process.
The timing of this decision, issued near the end of 2025, suggests it may influence how Nebraska courts approach error review in future cases. The clear articulation of standards provides predictable guidelines for attorneys and judges throughout the state's court system.
While the full details of the underlying criminal case against Cristian E. Gonzalez Molina are not apparent from the available excerpt, the procedural ruling establishes precedent that will guide Nebraska courts in determining when unpreserved errors warrant appellate intervention. The decision balances the need for judicial efficiency with the fundamental requirement that courts ensure fair proceedings for all litigants.