context: The court's position is confused because the plain-error rule does not actually have a different purpose than the common-law forfeiture doctrine. We have repeatedly recognized that the purpose and effect of the plain-error rule, like the common-law forfeiture doctrine, is to encourage contemporaneous objections.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 556 U.S. 184, 184-36
citation_a.parenthetical: recognizing that the plain-error rule is tied directly to the contemporaneous-objection requirement as it "sets forth the consequences" for failing to object and promotes "judicial efficiency"
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Pearson, 775 N.W.2d at 161 (“The plain error doctrine encourages defendants to object while in the trial court so that any errors can be corrected before their full impact is realized.”); Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 298-99; see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 184-36, 129 S.Ct. 1423 (recognizing that the plain-error rule is tied directly to the contemporaneous-objection requirement as it “sets forth the consequences” for failing to object and promotes “judicial efficiency”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 775 N.W.2d 161, 161
citation_b.parenthetical: "The plain error doctrine encourages defendants to object while in the trial court so that any errors can be corrected before their full impact is realized."
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Pearson, 775 N.W.2d at 161 (“The plain error doctrine encourages defendants to object while in the trial court so that any errors can be corrected before their full impact is realized.”); Ramey, 721 N.W.2d at 298-99; see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 184-36, 129 S.Ct. 1423 (recognizing that the plain-error rule is tied directly to the contemporaneous-objection requirement as it “sets forth the consequences” for failing to object and promotes “judicial efficiency”).