Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
41 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 16 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384 , 108 S.W.3d 592 (2003), held that the State’s impermissible shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant during voir dire fell within the third Wicks exception. 2024Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384 , 108 S.W.3d 592 (2003), held that the State’s impermissible shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant during voir dire fell within the third Wicks exception. | 5 | 14 |
Wicks v. Stategreen2 sentences2003The issue in the instant case is the application of the third Wicks exception, that is, whether the prosecutor's comments during voir dire were "so flagrant and so highly prejudicial in character as to make it the duty of the court on its own motion to have instructed the jury not to consider the same." Wicks, 270 Ark. at 786 , 606 S.W.2d at 370 . 2003The issue in the instant case is the application of the third Wicks exception, that is, whether the prosecutor's comments during voir dire were "so flagrant and so highly prejudicial in character as to make it the duty of the court on its own motion to have instructed the jury not to consider the same." Wicks, 270 Ark. at 786 , 606 S.W.2d at 370 . | 3 | 9 |
McKenzie v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Indeed, this court has held that the third Wicks exception “has only been applied to cases in which a defendant’s fundamental right to a trial by jury is at issue.” Id. (quoting McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257, 277 , 208 S.W.3d 173, 184 (2005)). 2007Indeed, this court has held that the third Wicks exception “has only been applied to cases in which a defendant’s fundamental right to a trial by jury is at issue.” Id. (quoting McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257, 277 , 208 S.W.3d 173, 184 (2005)). | 3 | 4 |
Rackley v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Given that the State informed the court of the mistake, and the court subsequently failed to act, the error here was “so flagrant and so highly prejudicial in character as to make it the duty of the court on its own motion to have instructed the jury correctly.” Rackley v. State, 371 Ark. 438, 440 , 267 S.W.3d 578, 580 (2007) (quoting Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256, 261 , 244 S.W.3d 683, 687 (2006) (discussing the third Wicks exception)). 2020Given that the State informed the court of the mistake, and the court subsequently failed to act, the error here was “so flagrant and so highly prejudicial in character as to make it the duty of the court on its own motion to have instructed the jury correctly.” Rackley v. State, 371 Ark. 438, 440 , 267 S.W.3d 578, 580 (2007) (quoting Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256, 261 , 244 S.W.3d 683, 687 (2006) (discussing the third Wicks exception)). | 2 | 4 |
David Shaun White v. State of Arkansasgreen2 sentences2026The White [v. State, 2023 Ark. 90, at 10 , 667 S.W.3d 533, 540 ] court held that “there is no basis for us to apply the third Wicks exception to the prosecutor’s closing argument since this does not affect the very 4 structure of the criminal trial, such as the fundamental right to a trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, and the State’s burden of proof. 2026The White [v. State, 2023 Ark. 90, at 10 , 667 S.W.3d 533, 540 ] court held that “there is no basis for us to apply the third Wicks exception to the prosecutor’s closing argument since this does not affect the very 4 structure of the criminal trial, such as the fundamental right to a trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, and the State’s burden of proof. | 2 | 3 |
Chunestudy v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Relying on our holding in Chunestudy v. State, we have only extended the third Wicks exception to review issues of a criminal defendant’s right to a twelve-person jury, informing juries on a point of law once deliberations have begun, and statements during voir dire that shift the burden of proof. 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d 55 , 62–63; see also White v. State, 2023 Ark. 90, at 10 , 667 S.W.3d 533, 540 ; Douglas v. State, 2017 Ark. 70 , at 4–5, 511 S.W.3d 852, 855 . 2025Relying on our holding in Chunestudy v. State, we have only extended the third Wicks exception to review issues of a criminal defendant’s right to a twelve-person jury, informing juries on a point of law once deliberations have begun, and statements during voir dire that shift the burden of proof. 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d 55 , 62–63; see also White v. State, 2023 Ark. 90, at 10 , 667 S.W.3d 533, 540 ; Douglas v. State, 2017 Ark. 70 , at 4–5, 511 S.W.3d 852, 855 . | 1 | 8 |
Douglas v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Relying on our holding in Chunestudy v. State, we have only extended the third Wicks exception to review issues of a criminal defendant’s right to a twelve-person jury, informing juries on a point of law once deliberations have begun, and statements during voir dire that shift the burden of proof. 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d 55 , 62–63; see also White v. State, 2023 Ark. 90, at 10 , 667 S.W.3d 533, 540 ; Douglas v. State, 2017 Ark. 70 , at 4–5, 511 S.W.3d 852, 855 . 2025Relying on our holding in Chunestudy v. State, we have only extended the third Wicks exception to review issues of a criminal defendant’s right to a twelve-person jury, informing juries on a point of law once deliberations have begun, and statements during voir dire that shift the burden of proof. 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d 55 , 62–63; see also White v. State, 2023 Ark. 90, at 10 , 667 S.W.3d 533, 540 ; Douglas v. State, 2017 Ark. 70 , at 4–5, 511 S.W.3d 852, 855 . | 1 | 4 |
Buckley v. Stategreen2 sentences2005The Anderson court further pointed out that the third Wicks exception “has not been applied to consider possible prosecutorial errors in relation to cross examination, Vaughn v. State, [supra], to privileged testimony, Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62 , 31 S.W.3d 850 (2000), or closing arguments, Buckley [v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002)], and Greene v. State, 343 Ark. 526 , 37 S.W.3d 579 (2001).” Id. 2005The Anderson court further pointed out that the third Wicks exception “has not been applied to consider possible prosecutorial errors in relation to cross examination, Vaughn v. State, [supra], to privileged testimony, Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62 , 31 S.W.3d 850 (2000), or closing arguments, Buckley [v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002)], and Greene v. State, 343 Ark. 526 , 37 S.W.3d 579 (2001).” Id. | 1 | 4 |
Calnan v. Stategreen2 sentences2021The third Wicks exception has been applied very rarely to matters such as (1) the right to a twelve-person jury, Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff, 322 Ark. 45, 50 , 907 S.W.2d 690, 692 (1995); (2) the right to a trial by jury, Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744, 749 , 841 S.W.2d 593, 596 (1992), and Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 841 S.W.2d 589 , 591 (1992); (3) violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-125(e), Goff v. State, 329 Ark. 513, 525 , 953 S.W.2d 38 , 45–46 (1997); and (4) statements by a prosecutor in voir dire that have the effect of shifting the burden of proof, Anderso 2021The third Wicks exception has been applied very rarely to matters such as (1) the right to a twelve-person jury, Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff, 322 Ark. 45, 50 , 907 S.W.2d 690, 692 (1995); (2) the right to a trial by jury, Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744, 749 , 841 S.W.2d 593, 596 (1992), and Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 841 S.W.2d 589 , 591 (1992); (3) violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-125(e), Goff v. State, 329 Ark. 513, 525 , 953 S.W.2d 38 , 45–46 (1997); and (4) statements by a prosecutor in voir dire that have the effect of shifting the burden of proof, Anderso | 1 | 4 |
Tristan Tiarks v. State of Arkansasgreen2 sentences2024Id., 662 S.W.3d at 676 (citing Tiarks, 2021 Ark. 2023See also Tiarks v. State, 2021 Ark. | 1 | 3 |
Grinning v. City of Pine Bluffgreen2 sentences2021The third Wicks exception has been applied very rarely to matters such as (1) the right to a twelve-person jury, Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff, 322 Ark. 45, 50 , 907 S.W.2d 690, 692 (1995); (2) the right to a trial by jury, Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744, 749 , 841 S.W.2d 593, 596 (1992), and Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 841 S.W.2d 589 , 591 (1992); (3) violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-125(e), Goff v. State, 329 Ark. 513, 525 , 953 S.W.2d 38 , 45–46 (1997); and (4) statements by a prosecutor in voir dire that have the effect of shifting the burden of proof, Anderso 2021The third Wicks exception has been applied very rarely to matters such as (1) the right to a twelve-person jury, Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff, 322 Ark. 45, 50 , 907 S.W.2d 690, 692 (1995); (2) the right to a trial by jury, Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744, 749 , 841 S.W.2d 593, 596 (1992), and Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 841 S.W.2d 589 , 591 (1992); (3) violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-125(e), Goff v. State, 329 Ark. 513, 525 , 953 S.W.2d 38 , 45–46 (1997); and (4) statements by a prosecutor in voir dire that have the effect of shifting the burden of proof, Anderso | 1 | 3 |
Hale v. Stategreen2 sentences2021In contrast, the third Wicks exception was not applied (1) to consider possible prosecutorial errors in relation to cross-examination, Vaugh v. State, 338 Ark. 220 , 227, 992 S.W.2d 785 , 789 (1999); (2) to privileged testimony, Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62, 82 , 31 S.W.3d 850, 862 (2000); or (3) in closing arguments, Chunestudy, 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d at 62 . 2021In contrast, the third Wicks exception was not applied (1) to consider possible prosecutorial errors in relation to cross-examination, Vaugh v. State, 338 Ark. 220 , 227, 992 S.W.2d 785 , 789 (1999); (2) to privileged testimony, Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62, 82 , 31 S.W.3d 850, 862 (2000); or (3) in closing arguments, Chunestudy, 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d at 62 . | 1 | 3 |
Springs v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Given that the State informed the court of the mistake, and the court subsequently failed to act, the error here was “so flagrant and so highly prejudicial in character as to make it the duty of the court on its own motion to have instructed the jury correctly.” Rackley v. State, 371 Ark. 438, 440 , 267 S.W.3d 578, 580 (2007) (quoting Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256, 261 , 244 S.W.3d 683, 687 (2006) (discussing the third Wicks exception)). 2020Given that the State informed the court of the mistake, and the court subsequently failed to act, the error here was “so flagrant and so highly prejudicial in character as to make it the duty of the court on its own motion to have instructed the jury correctly.” Rackley v. State, 371 Ark. 438, 440 , 267 S.W.3d 578, 580 (2007) (quoting Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256, 261 , 244 S.W.3d 683, 687 (2006) (discussing the third Wicks exception)). | 1 | 2 |
Halliday v. Stategreen2 sentences2019App. 544 , 386 S.W.3d 51 (declining to apply the third Wicks exception to the giving of an erroneous jury instruction, noting that the circuit court gave the jury instructions that it, and the parties, deemed correct). 2018App. 544 , 386 S.W.3d 51 , our court declined to extend the third Wicks exception to the giving of an erroneous jury instruction, noting that the circuit court gave the jury instructions that it, and the parties, deemed to be correct. | 1 | 2 |
Fields v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Fields v. State, 2019 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Michael Jenkins v. State of Arkansasgreen1 sentence2020See Jenkins v. State, 2019 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
| Meadows v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bowen v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vaughan v. State
green
2 sentences2021In contrast, the third Wicks exception was not applied (1) to consider possible prosecutorial errors in relation to cross-examination, Vaugh v. State, 338 Ark. 220 , 227, 992 S.W.2d 785 , 789 (1999); (2) to privileged testimony, Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62, 82 , 31 S.W.3d 850, 862 (2000); or (3) in closing arguments, Chunestudy, 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d at 62 . 2021In contrast, the third Wicks exception was not applied (1) to consider possible prosecutorial errors in relation to cross-examination, Vaugh v. State, 338 Ark. 220 , 227, 992 S.W.2d 785 , 789 (1999); (2) to privileged testimony, Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62, 82 , 31 S.W.3d 850, 862 (2000); or (3) in closing arguments, Chunestudy, 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d at 62 . | 4 | 2003–2021 |
White v. State
green
2 sentences2023Since the decision in Wicks, however, our supreme court has said that the third Wicks exception “is limited to only those errors affecting the very structure of the criminal trial, such as the fundamental right to a trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, and the State’s burden of proof.” White v. State, 2012 Ark. 221, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d 720, 726 . 2023Since the decision in Wicks, however, our supreme court has said that the third Wicks exception “is limited to only those errors affecting the very structure of the criminal trial, such as the fundamental right to a trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, and the State’s burden of proof.” White v. State, 2012 Ark. 221, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d 720, 726 . | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Goff v. State
green
2 sentences2021The third Wicks exception has been applied very rarely to matters such as (1) the right to a twelve-person jury, Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff, 322 Ark. 45, 50 , 907 S.W.2d 690, 692 (1995); (2) the right to a trial by jury, Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744, 749 , 841 S.W.2d 593, 596 (1992), and Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 841 S.W.2d 589 , 591 (1992); (3) violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-125(e), Goff v. State, 329 Ark. 513, 525 , 953 S.W.2d 38 , 45–46 (1997); and (4) statements by a prosecutor in voir dire that have the effect of shifting the burden of proof, Anderso 2021The third Wicks exception has been applied very rarely to matters such as (1) the right to a twelve-person jury, Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff, 322 Ark. 45, 50 , 907 S.W.2d 690, 692 (1995); (2) the right to a trial by jury, Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744, 749 , 841 S.W.2d 593, 596 (1992), and Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 841 S.W.2d 589 , 591 (1992); (3) violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-125(e), Goff v. State, 329 Ark. 513, 525 , 953 S.W.2d 38 , 45–46 (1997); and (4) statements by a prosecutor in voir dire that have the effect of shifting the burden of proof, Anderso | 2 | 2021–2024 |
Edwards v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
green
2 sentences2023App. 413 , 587 S.W.3d 586 ; Edwards v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. 2023App. 37, at 13 , 480 S.W.3d at 222 , this court held that the third Wicks exception did not apply to preserve Edwards’s argument on appeal that his due-process rights were violated when his termination-of-parental-rights hearing was held in his absence. | 2 | 2019–2023 |
Winkle v. State
green
2 sentences2021The third Wicks exception has been applied very rarely to matters such as (1) the right to a twelve-person jury, Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff, 322 Ark. 45, 50 , 907 S.W.2d 690, 692 (1995); (2) the right to a trial by jury, Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744, 749 , 841 S.W.2d 593, 596 (1992), and Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 841 S.W.2d 589 , 591 (1992); (3) violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-125(e), Goff v. State, 329 Ark. 513, 525 , 953 S.W.2d 38 , 45–46 (1997); and (4) statements by a prosecutor in voir dire that have the effect of shifting the burden of proof, Anderso 2021The third Wicks exception has been applied very rarely to matters such as (1) the right to a twelve-person jury, Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff, 322 Ark. 45, 50 , 907 S.W.2d 690, 692 (1995); (2) the right to a trial by jury, Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744, 749 , 841 S.W.2d 593, 596 (1992), and Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 841 S.W.2d 589 , 591 (1992); (3) violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-125(e), Goff v. State, 329 Ark. 513, 525 , 953 S.W.2d 38 , 45–46 (1997); and (4) statements by a prosecutor in voir dire that have the effect of shifting the burden of proof, Anderso | 2 | 2005–2021 |
Jones v. State
neutral
2 sentences2019Jones v. State , 2017 Ark. 2018Jones v. State , 2017 Ark. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Greene v. State
green
2 sentences2005The Anderson court further pointed out that the third Wicks exception “has not been applied to consider possible prosecutorial errors in relation to cross examination, Vaughn v. State, [supra], to privileged testimony, Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62 , 31 S.W.3d 850 (2000), or closing arguments, Buckley [v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002)], and Greene v. State, 343 Ark. 526 , 37 S.W.3d 579 (2001).” Id. 2005The Anderson court further pointed out that the third Wicks exception “has not been applied to consider possible prosecutorial errors in relation to cross examination, Vaughn v. State, [supra], to privileged testimony, Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62 , 31 S.W.3d 850 (2000), or closing arguments, Buckley [v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002)], and Greene v. State, 343 Ark. 526 , 37 S.W.3d 579 (2001).” Id. | 2 | 2003–2005 |
Vogel v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
neutral
1 sentence2025App. 671 , 476 S.W.3d 825 , this court also addressed the application of the third Wicks exception in termination cases. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
John A. Roberts v. State of Arkansas
green
1 sentence2024Id., 662 S.W.3d at 676 (citing Tiarks, 2021 Ark. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sonya Owen v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child
neutral
2 sentences2023Id. 7 Lawson points out that since Baker, application of the third Wicks exception has been presented in at least three termination-of-parental-rights cases: Owen v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2019 Ark. 2023Id. 7 Lawson points out that since Baker, application of the third Wicks exception has been presented in at least three termination-of-parental-rights cases: Owen v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2019 Ark. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lard v. State
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 27 , 431 S.W.3d at 268 . 2021Id. at 27 , 431 S.W.3d at 268 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Baumann v. State
green
2 sentences2021In Baumann v. State, this court stated that the third Wicks exception is a narrow one that has thus far been applied only in cases where the fundamental right to a jury trial is at issue. 9 2018 Ark. 2021App. 564, at 17 , 566 S.W.3d 494, 505 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Miller v. State
green
1 sentence2019See Chunestudy, supra (refused to apply Wicks where the appellant argued that the prosecutor’s comments violated his constitutional right to remain silent); Lard, supra (the prosecutor’s comments about sending a message to others who might consider killing a police officer did not rise to the level of falling under the third exception); Miller v. State, 2010 Ark. 1, at 37 , 362 S.W.3d 246 , 286–87 (the prosecutor’s comment during closing argument that the “only just verdict is the ultimate penalty and that is the payment of [Miller’s] life for the victims” did not “rise to a level that warrant | 1 | 2019–2019 |
David v. State
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 (holding that prosecutor’s question about defendant’s prior statement regarding whether he had had sex with his daughter while she was a minor did not fall within exception); McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 , 208 S.W.3d 173 (2005) (holding that prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant about his mother’s alleged statement that he had been accused of a crime in Jamaica was not the sort of error that fell within third Wicks exception); Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002) (holding that defendant could not raise for f 2016See, e.g., Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 (holding that prosecutor’s question about defendant’s prior statement regarding whether he had had sex with his daughter while she was a minor did not fall within exception); McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 , 208 S.W.3d 173 (2005) (holding that prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant about his mother’s alleged statement that he had been accused of a crime in Jamaica was not the sort of error that fell within third Wicks exception); Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 , 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002) (holding that defendant could not raise for f | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Lopez-Deleon v. State neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Sims v. State neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Johnson v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Cook v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Camargo v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.