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.
14 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wicks v. Stategreen2 sentences2011The fourth Wicks exception has its roots in Arkansas Rule of Evidence 103(d), which provides that “[n]othing in this rule precludes taking notice of errors affecting substantial rights, although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Our supreme court has warned against relying on this exception, stating that it “is negative, not imposing an affirmative duty, and at most applies only to a ruling which admits or excludes evidence.” Buckley, 349 Ark. at 65-66 , 76 S.W.3d at 833 (quoting Wicks, 270 Ark. at 786 , 606 S.W.2d at 370 ) The giving of an allegedly erroneous jury instruct 2011The fourth Wicks exception has its roots in Arkansas Rule of Evidence 103(d), which provides that “[n]othing in this rule precludes taking notice of errors affecting substantial rights, although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Our supreme court has warned against relying on this exception, stating that it “is negative, not imposing an affirmative duty, and at most applies only to a ruling which admits or excludes evidence.” Buckley, 349 Ark. at 65-66 , 76 S.W.3d at 833 (quoting Wicks, 270 Ark. at 786 , 606 S.W.2d at 370 ) The giving of an allegedly erroneous jury instruct | 2 | 4 |
Crawford v. Stategreen2 sentences2016The fourth Wicks exception is implicated when the admission or exclusion of evidence affects a defendant’s substantial rights, but the White court quotes from Crawford v. State, 362 Ark. 301 , 208 S.W.3d 146 (2005) and explains In declining to apply the fourth Wicks exception, we held that Rule 103(d) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence is, as the Wicks court noted, “negative, not imposing an affirmative duty” on the court. 2016The fourth Wicks exception is implicated when the admission or exclusion of evidence affects a defendant’s substantial rights, but the White court quotes from Crawford v. State, 362 Ark. 301 , 208 S.W.3d 146 (2005) and explains In declining to apply the fourth Wicks exception, we held that Rule 103(d) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence is, as the Wicks court noted, “negative, not imposing an affirmative duty” on the court. | 1 | 2 |
Douglas v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See id. at 5, 511 S.W.3d at 855 (declining to apply fourth Wicks exception to jury- instruction error on direct appeal). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Buckley v. State
green
2 sentences2011The fourth Wicks exception has its roots in Arkansas Rule of Evidence 103(d), which provides that “[n]othing in this rule precludes taking notice of errors affecting substantial rights, although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Our supreme court has warned against relying on this exception, stating that it “is negative, not imposing an affirmative duty, and at most applies only to a ruling which admits or excludes evidence.” Buckley, 349 Ark. at 65-66 , 76 S.W.3d at 833 (quoting Wicks, 270 Ark. at 786 , 606 S.W.2d at 370 ) The giving of an allegedly erroneous jury instruct 2011The fourth Wicks exception has its roots in Arkansas Rule of Evidence 103(d), which provides that “[n]othing in this rule precludes taking notice of errors affecting substantial rights, although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” Our supreme court has warned against relying on this exception, stating that it “is negative, not imposing an affirmative duty, and at most applies only to a ruling which admits or excludes evidence.” Buckley, 349 Ark. at 65-66 , 76 S.W.3d at 833 (quoting Wicks, 270 Ark. at 786 , 606 S.W.2d at 370 ) The giving of an allegedly erroneous jury instruct | 5 | 2005–2016 |
White v. State
green
2 sentences2024Id. 2013Id. | 2 | 2013–2024 |
Mahomes v. State
green
2 sentences2022Id. 2020This precedent severely undercuts Witherspoon’s claim that Wicks must apply in the present case 2 because the alleged error impacts a “substantial right.” Moreover, “[t]he White court . . . declined to apply the fourth Wicks exception—that the evidence affected the defendant’s substantial rights—to a situation where, like here, there was a simple failure to make a contemporaneous objection at trial.” Id. | 2 | 2020–2022 |
Gamet v. State
neutral
1 sentence2024App. 206 , 518 S.W.3d 130 . 2 Appellant acknowledges that he made no objection below but argues that we should address this point based on the fourth Wicks exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule.6 The fourth Wicks exception is implicated when the admission or exclusion of evidence affects a defendant’s substantial rights.7 Appellant argues that we should address this issue because the circuit court denied him his substantial right of allocution. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Fukunaga v. State
green
1 sentence2020The fourth Wicks exception derives from Arkansas Rule of Evidence 103(d), which provides that an appellate court “may take notice of errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the [trial] court.” Fukunaga v. State, 2014 Ark. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.