Harmless Error: Jury instructions constitute trial error. State v. LaMere, 2000 MT 45, ¶¶ 44-45, 298 Mont. 358, 2 P.3d 204. Trial error is that type of error that typically occurs during the presentation of a case to the jury. Such error is amenable to qualitative assessment by a reviewing court for prejudicial impact relative to the other evidence introduced at trial. Trial error is not presumptively prejudicial and therefore not automatically reversible, and is subject to review under our harmless error statute, § 46-20-701(1), MCA. State v. Van Kirk, 306 Mont. 215, 225, 32 P.3d 735, 744 (2001). To constitute harmless error, this Court must be able to assent as a court that the offensive instruction could not reasonably have contributed to the jury verdict. This Court determines the impact of the error upon a reasonable jury. If the impact of the instruction could not have reasonably contributed to the verdict, then the error is harmless. State v. Hamilton, 185 Mont. 522, 541-42, 605 P.2d 1121, 1132 (1980). A court must view all the evidence in determining whether the instruction had an impact on the jury. State v. Martinez, 188 Mont. 271, 281, 613 P.2d 974, 979 (1980).
Plain Error: Where the defendant raises the plain error doctrine to request our review of issues that were not objected to at the district court level, our review is discretionary. State v. Daniels, 2003 MT 247 ¶ 20, 317 Mont. 331, 77 P.3d 224. This Court's inherent power of common law plain error review is used sparingly, on a case-by-case basis. Plain error review is undertaken only in those cases that implicate a criminal defendant's fundamental constitutional rights, 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 or proceedings, or may compromise the integrity of the judicial process. State v. Dubois, 2006 MT 89, ¶ 31, 322 Mont. 44, 134 P.3d 82.