remedy unobjected-to errors.” The court’s insistence that the forfeiture rule and the plain-error rule “have different purposes and are guided by different principles” is both confused and confusing. 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. 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 (<HOLDING>). The court’s position is confusing because the
recognizing that the plainerror rule is tied directly to the contemporaneousobjection requirement as it sets forth the consequences for failing to object and promotes judicial efficiency holding that a defendant who fails to raise rule 11 error at trial has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule holding that a silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review holding that plainerror review applies where the defendant fails to object to a constructive amendment