Under plain error, it is the defendant who permitted the error to occur by failing to object, not the State, thus the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the need for review which overcomes that error. State v. Reichmand, 2010 MT 228, ¶ 42, 358 Mont. 68, 243 P.3d 423.
The Court may discretionarily review claimed errors that implicate a criminal defendant's fundamental rights, even if no contemporaneous objection is made and notwithstanding the inapplicability of the § 46-20-701(2), MCA, criteria, where failing to review the claimed error at issue may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process. State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 137-38, 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996) (overruled on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, 304 Mont. 215, 19 P.3d 817).
Exercise of common law plain error review, where the criteria of § 46-20-701(2), MCA, have not been met, must be used sparingly, on a case-by-case basis. It can only be invoked where failing to review the claimed error at issue may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice, may leave unsettled the question of the fundamental fairness of the trial proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process. State v. Finley, 276 Mont. 126, 137, 915 P.2d 208, 215 (1996) (overruled on other grounds by State v. Gallagher, 2001 MT 39, 304 Mont. 215, 19 P.3d 817).