Legal Definitions - obvious error

An "obvious error" refers to a significant mistake that occurred during a trial that was not formally challenged or objected to by the lawyers involved at the time it happened. Despite the lack of an immediate objection, the error is considered so severe and fundamentally unfair that it clearly affected the trial's outcome, leading to a profoundly unjust result. An appeals court might review such an error, even without a prior objection, if the injustice is plain and undeniable and shocks the conscience.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Incorrect Jury Instruction in a Criminal Case: Imagine a criminal trial where the judge mistakenly instructs the jury that they can convict the defendant of theft if they believe the defendant merely intended to take property, rather than requiring proof that the defendant actually took and carried away the property. The defense attorney, perhaps due to an oversight, fails to object to this incorrect instruction at the time. This could be considered an obvious error because the judge's instruction fundamentally misstated a core legal requirement for the crime. Even without an immediate objection, this serious and prejudicial error could easily lead to a wrongful conviction, resulting in a "manifest injustice" that an appeals court would likely address.

• Introduction of Highly Prejudicial Evidence in a Civil Case: During a civil lawsuit concerning a car accident, the plaintiff's attorney accidentally displays a document to the jury that reveals the defendant had a prior, unrelated bankruptcy filing several years ago. This information is completely irrelevant to the car accident case and is highly prejudicial, potentially making the jury view the defendant as financially irresponsible. The defendant's attorney is momentarily distracted and fails to object before the jury sees the document. This could be an obvious error because the introduction of such irrelevant and inflammatory information has no bearing on the accident claim and is designed solely to unfairly bias the jury. Despite the lack of an immediate objection, the potential for this evidence to unfairly influence the jury's decision is so high that it could lead to a "manifest injustice," warranting review by an appeals court.

• Prosecutor Misconduct During Closing Arguments: In a high-profile murder trial, during closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly tells the jury that the defendant "must be guilty because he refused to testify and explain his side of the story." This statement directly violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which protects a defendant from being compelled to testify. The defense attorney, perhaps overwhelmed by the moment, fails to object to these highly improper remarks. This would likely be deemed an obvious error because the prosecutor's comments directly attacked a fundamental constitutional right and clearly implied guilt from silence, which is legally impermissible. The statements are so inflammatory and prejudicial that they could undeniably sway the jury towards a guilty verdict, resulting in a "manifest injustice," even without a timely objection from the defense.