stating that the Osborne forfeiture exception applies when “an intervening change in the law excuse[s] the defendant’s failure to assert what would have otherwise been a futile objection in the district court.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the Osborne forfeiture exception applies when “an intervening change in the law excuse[s] the defendant’s failure to assert what would have otherwise been a futile objection in the district court.”
- noting that “waiver is the intentional relinquishment . . . of a known right” and forfeiture is a “failure to make a timely assertion of a right” (quotation omitted)
- clarifying that forfeiture doctrine applies when defendant failed to object or raise issue in district court, but plain-error doctrine permits an appellate court to consider forfeited errors
- defining “forfeiture” as “a failure to make a timely assertion of a right”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WRIGHT, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Lillehaug.