contemporaneous objection rule in Arkansas

99 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 26 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.

Followed or applied (27)

Case	Followed	Cited
Wicks v. Stategreen ark · 1980 · cited in 58 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1992–2026 2 sentences 2025App. 714 , this court held that an inconsistent-verdict argument that was not made to the circuit court was not preserved and that the third exception to the contemporaneous-objection requirement set forth in Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980), in which a circuit court should intervene on its own motion to correct a flagrant and highly prejudicial error, was not applicable under that circumstance. 2025App. 714 , this court held that an inconsistent-verdict argument that was not made to the circuit court was not preserved and that the third exception to the contemporaneous-objection requirement set forth in Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980), in which a circuit court should intervene on its own motion to correct a flagrant and highly prejudicial error, was not applicable under that circumstance.	9	58
Brooks v. Stategreen ark · 1974 · cited in 3 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1999–2003 2 sentences 2003See Brooks v. State, 256 Ark. 1059 , 511 S.W.2d 654 (1974); Western Union Tel. 2003See Brooks v. State, 256 Ark. 1059 , 511 S.W.2d 654 (1974); Western Union Tel.	3	3
Anderson v. Stategreen ark · 2003 · cited in 8 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2025 2 sentences 2025Moreover, Wicks 4 exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule are “rarely applied.” Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d 55, 62 (quoting Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384, 398 , 108 S.W.3d 592 , 600–01 (2003)). 2025Moreover, Wicks 4 exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule are “rarely applied.” Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d 55, 62 (quoting Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384, 398 , 108 S.W.3d 592 , 600–01 (2003)).	2	8
Winkle v. Stategreen ark · 1992 · cited in 4 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1995–2025 2 sentences 2025See Ayala v. State, 365 Ark. 192 , 194–95, 226 S.W.3d 766, 768 (2006) (setting aside the amended notice of appeal requirement when the circuit court denied the defendant a trial for missing a pre- trial conference); Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 847 S.W.2d 589 , 591–92 (1992) (setting aside the contemporaneous objection requirement because a defendant does not need a contemporaneous objection to preserve his constitutional right to a trial). 1997Specifically, the Grinning court, citing Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 841 S.W.2d 589 (1992), stated that the denial of the right to trial by jury in a criminal case, without the requisite waiver in accordance with the law, is a serious error for which the trial court should intervene, and is therefore an exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule.	2	4
John A. Roberts v. State of Arkansasgreen arkctapp · 2023 · cited in 3 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2024 2 sentences 2024Wicks’s exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule are “rarely applied.” Roberts v. State, 2023 Ark. 2023Wicks’s exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule are “rarely applied.” Roberts v. State, 2023 Ark.	2	3
Ayala v. Stategreen ark · 2006 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2025 2 sentences 2025See Ayala v. State, 365 Ark. 192 , 194–95, 226 S.W.3d 766, 768 (2006) (setting aside the amended notice of appeal requirement when the circuit court denied the defendant a trial for missing a pre- trial conference); Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 847 S.W.2d 589 , 591–92 (1992) (setting aside the contemporaneous objection requirement because a defendant does not need a contemporaneous objection to preserve his constitutional right to a trial). 2025See Ayala v. State, 365 Ark. 192 , 194–95, 226 S.W.3d 766, 768 (2006) (setting aside the amended notice of appeal requirement when the circuit court denied the defendant a trial for missing a pre- trial conference); Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 847 S.W.2d 589 , 591–92 (1992) (setting aside the contemporaneous objection requirement because a defendant does not need a contemporaneous objection to preserve his constitutional right to a trial).	2	2
Thessing v. Stategreen ark · 2006 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2015 2 sentences 2015See Thessing v. State, 365 Ark. 384 , 230 S.W.3d 526 (2006) (concluding that a challenge to the “at-the-time-of-the-murder” language did not rise to the level of serious error or a matter essential for the jury’s consideration of the death penalty). \|1sNooner concedes that this court denied a similar Eighth Amendment claim on the merits in Thessing, 365 Ark. 384 , 230 S.W.3d 526 , but contends that Thessing is not controlling here because “the United States Supreme Court has made clear [that], whether there is a reasonable likelihood that a challenged instruction precluded the jury from consid 2015See Thessing v. State, 365 Ark. 384 , 230 S.W.3d 526 (2006) (concluding that a challenge to the “at-the-time-of-the-murder” language did not rise to the level of serious error or a matter essential for the jury’s consideration of the death penalty). \|1sNooner concedes that this court denied a similar Eighth Amendment claim on the merits in Thessing, 365 Ark. 384 , 230 S.W.3d 526 , but contends that Thessing is not controlling here because “the United States Supreme Court has made clear [that], whether there is a reasonable likelihood that a challenged instruction precluded the jury from consid	2	2
Calnan v. Stategreen ark · 1992 · cited in 4 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1994–2001 2 sentences 2001In making the argument that he is not barred from raising this issue on appeal, appellant relies on Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744 , 841 S.W.2d 593 (1992) as authority for the proposition that the contemporaneous objection rule does not apply in this case. 2001In making the argument that he is not barred from raising this issue on appeal, appellant relies on Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744 , 841 S.W.2d 593 (1992) as authority for the proposition that the contemporaneous objection rule does not apply in this case.	1	4
Marta v. Stategreen ark · 1999 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2019 2 sentences 2009The contemporaneous-objection rule requires a defendant to apprise the court of alleged error “prior to making its decision.” Marta v. State, 336 Ark. 67, 80 , 983 S.W.2d 924, 931 (1999). 2009The contemporaneous-objection rule requires a defendant to apprise the court of alleged error “prior to making its decision.” Marta v. State, 336 Ark. 67, 80 , 983 S.W.2d 924, 931 (1999).	1	2
Robinson v. Stategreen ark · 2002 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2003 2 sentences 2003In Robinson v. State, 348 Ark. 280 , 72 S.W.3d 827 (2002), this court stated that the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule is to give the trial court a fair opportunity to consider an allegation of error and to correct it, if the allegation is meritorious. 2003In Robinson v. State, 348 Ark. 280 , 72 S.W.3d 827 (2002), this court stated that the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule is to give the trial court a fair opportunity to consider an allegation of error and to correct it, if the allegation is meritorious.	1	2
Dean v. Stategreen ark · 1999 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025The circuit court cited Dean v. State, 339 Ark. 105, 110 , 3 S.W.3d 328, 332 (1999), and stated, “[T]he time to object was at the time the trial court made its ruling, not in the subsequent speedy trial motion.” However, as explained above, the contemporaneous-objection rule provides that a contemporaneous objection to the excluded period is necessary to preserve the argument in a subsequent speedy-trial motion if defense counsel is present at the hearing and has an opportunity to object. 2025The circuit court cited Dean v. State, 339 Ark. 105, 110 , 3 S.W.3d 328, 332 (1999), and stated, “[T]he time to object was at the time the trial court made its ruling, not in the subsequent speedy trial motion.” However, as explained above, the contemporaneous-objection rule provides that a contemporaneous objection to the excluded period is necessary to preserve the argument in a subsequent speedy-trial motion if defense counsel is present at the hearing and has an opportunity to object.	1	1
Chunestudy v. Stategreen ark · 2012 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025Moreover, Wicks 4 exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule are “rarely applied.” Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d 55, 62 (quoting Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384, 398 , 108 S.W.3d 592 , 600–01 (2003)). 2025Moreover, Wicks 4 exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule are “rarely applied.” Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222, at 10 , 408 S.W.3d 55, 62 (quoting Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384, 398 , 108 S.W.3d 592 , 600–01 (2003)).	1	1
Rasmussen v. Stategreen ark · 1982 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024See Rasmusen v. State, 277 Ark. 238 , 641 S.W.2d 699 (1982) (holding that defense’s objection to question posed by State did not preserve argument on appeal that the trial court made misleading comments in the discussion following the objection). 6 Damron alternatively contends that his argument should be considered under the third or fourth Wicks exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule. 2024See Rasmusen v. State, 277 Ark. 238 , 641 S.W.2d 699 (1982) (holding that defense’s objection to question posed by State did not preserve argument on appeal that the trial court made misleading comments in the discussion following the objection). 6 Damron alternatively contends that his argument should be considered under the third or fourth Wicks exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule.	1	1
Hamilton v. Stategreen ark · 2002 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023	1	1
Springs v. Stategreen ark · 2006 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018	1	1
Nooner v. Stategreen ark · 2014 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
Johnson v. Stategreen ark · 1998 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
Lee v. Kemnagreen scotus · 2002 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003	1	1
Bader v. Stategreen ark · 2001 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002	1	1
Camargo v. Stategreen ark · 1997 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000	1	1
Wilson v. Stategreen moctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	1	1
Lammers v. Stategreen ark · 1996 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	1	1
Marshall v. Stategreen ark · 1994 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
Hill v. Stategreen ark · 1982 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
Tison v. Arizonagreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
Mertz v. Dennygreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1
International Rectifier Corp. v. Cohengreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
Strickland v. Stategreen ark · 1995 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003	1	1

Also cited on this issue (49)

Case	Cited	Years
Thomas v. State green ark · 2007 2 sentences 2010A contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appeal unless the failure to object falls within one of the four recognized exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule, known as the Wicks exceptions. 4 Id. at 74 , 257 S.W.3d at 97 (citing Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980)). 2010A contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appeal unless the failure to object falls within one of the four recognized exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule, known as the Wicks exceptions. 4 Id. at 74 , 257 S.W.3d at 97 (citing Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980)).	5	2009–2015
Moore v. State green ark · 1990 2 sentences 2001Moore v. State, 303 Ark. 514 , 798 S.W.2d 87 (1990); Smith v. State, 296 Ark. 451 , 757 S.W.2d 554 (1988). 2001Moore v. State, 303 Ark. 514 , 798 S.W.2d 87 (1990); Smith v. State, 296 Ark. 451 , 757 S.W.2d 554 (1988).	3	1992–2001
White v. State green ark · 2012 2 sentences 2025White v. State, 2012 Ark. 221 , 408 S.W.3d 720 . 2025White v. State, 2012 Ark. 221 , 408 S.W.3d 720 .	2	2023–2025
Camacho-Mendoza v. State neutral arkctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2024Camacho-Mendoza v. State, 2009 Ark. 2018Camacho-Mendoza v. State , 2009 Ark.	2	2018–2024
Pratt v. Arkansas Department of Human Services neutral arkctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2019App. 399 , 413 S.W.3d 261 , in which this court clarified the discussion of Wicks in the Baker case by holding, “[T]he Wicks discussion in Baker arose from an earlier no-merit setting and stands only for the proposition that it may not be frivolous to argue that the Wicks exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule might apply in a termination case where an issue was not preserved.” 2012 Ark. 2019App. 399 , 413 S.W.3d 261 , in which this court clarified the discussion of Wicks in the Baker case by holding, “[T]he Wicks discussion in Baker arose from an earlier no-merit setting and stands only for the proposition that it may not be frivolous to argue that the Wicks exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule might apply in a termination case where an issue was not preserved.” 2012 Ark.	2	2014–2019
Ferguson v. State green ark · 2000 2 sentences 2019The State argues that this case turns purely on an issue of law: the contemporaneous objection requirement for raising and preserving a speedy-trial issue, as set forth in Ferguson v. State , 343 Ark. 159 , 33 S.W.3d 115 (2000). 2019The State argues that this case turns purely on an issue of law: the contemporaneous objection requirement for raising and preserving a speedy-trial issue, as set forth in Ferguson v. State , 343 Ark. 159 , 33 S.W.3d 115 (2000).	2	2005–2019
Smith v. State green ark · 1988 2 sentences 2001Moore v. State, 303 Ark. 514 , 798 S.W.2d 87 (1990); Smith v. State, 296 Ark. 451 , 757 S.W.2d 554 (1988). 2001Moore v. State, 303 Ark. 514 , 798 S.W.2d 87 (1990); Smith v. State, 296 Ark. 451 , 757 S.W.2d 554 (1988).	2	1992–2001
State v. Brummett green ark · 1994 2 sentences 1998We noted in State v. Brummett, 318 Ark. 220 , 885 S.W.2d 8 (1994), also an appeal from a bench-trial ruling, that the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule is to give the trial court an opportunity to know the reason for disagreement with its proposed action prior to making its decision or at the time the ruling occurs. 1998We noted in State v. Brummett, 318 Ark. 220 , 885 S.W.2d 8 (1994), also an appeal from a bench-trial ruling, that the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule is to give the trial court an opportunity to know the reason for disagreement with its proposed action prior to making its decision or at the time the ruling occurs.	2	1998–1999
Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff green ark · 1995 2 sentences 1997Before leaving Jefferson’s first argument, we address his reference to Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff, 322 Ark. 45 , 907 S.W.2d 690 (1995), wherein this court, citing earlier cases, reiterated the proposition that the right to a jury trial is not subject to the contemporaneous-objection rule, and such a right may be raised for the first time on appeal. 1997Before leaving Jefferson’s first argument, we address his reference to Grinning v. City of Pine Bluff, 322 Ark. 45 , 907 S.W.2d 690 (1995), wherein this court, citing earlier cases, reiterated the proposition that the right to a jury trial is not subject to the contemporaneous-objection rule, and such a right may be raised for the first time on appeal.	2	1996–1997
Bryant Smith v. State of Arkansas green ark · 2025 2 sentences 2026Smith, 2025 Ark. 26 , 708 S.W.3d 336 . 2026Smith, 2025 Ark. 26 , 708 S.W.3d 336 .	1	2026–2026
McCoy v. Louisiana green scotus · 2018 2 sentences 2025Petties cites McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018), in which the United States Supreme Court held that “[v]iolation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment-secured autonomy ranks as error of the kind our decisions have called ‘structural.’” 584 U.S. at 427 . 2025Petties cites McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018), in which the United States Supreme Court held that “[v]iolation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment-secured autonomy ranks as error of the kind our decisions have called ‘structural.’” 584 U.S. at 427 .	1	2025–2025
Bowen v. State green arkctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2025Bowen v. State, 73 Ark.	1	2025–2025
Jimmy Standridge v. State of Arkansas green arkctapp · 2023 1 sentence 2025App. 141 , 662 S.W.3d 255 . 12 of imprisonment on one of his convictions.” Appellant acknowledges that no objection was made at trial but contends that the third exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule set out in Wicks v. State,24 applies.	1	2025–2025
Upjohn Co. v. Freeman green texapp · 1992 1 sentence 2025See Ayala v. State, 365 Ark. 192 , 194–95, 226 S.W.3d 766, 768 (2006) (setting aside the amended notice of appeal requirement when the circuit court denied the defendant a trial for missing a pre- trial conference); Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 717–18, 847 S.W.2d 589 , 591–92 (1992) (setting aside the contemporaneous objection requirement because a defendant does not need a contemporaneous objection to preserve his constitutional right to a trial).	1	2025–2025
Miller v. State green ark · 2008 1 sentence 2025Sales v. State, 374 Ark. 222 , 289 S.W.3d 423 (2008).	1	2025–2025
Sales v. State green ark · 2008 1 sentence 2025Sales v. State, 374 Ark. 222 , 289 S.W.3d 423 (2008).	1	2025–2025
Charles Burnett v. State of Arkansas neutral arkctapp · 2023 1 sentence 2024App. 242 , 665 S.W.3d 283 . 6 Newton nevertheless argues that this court should consider his arguments because his case “fits the narrow parameters of what is known in Arkansas as the third and fourth Wicks exceptions.” In Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980), the supreme court approved four limited exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule to preserve an issue for review: (1) a circuit court’s failure to bring a matter essential to consideration of the death penalty to the jury’s attention; (2) when an error is made by the circuit court when counsel has no knowledge of	1	2024–2024
Gamet v. State neutral arkctapp · 2017	1	2024–2024
Holder v. Arkansas Department of Human Services neutral arkctapp · 2016	1	2023–2023
Jackson v. Petit Jean Electric Co-Op green ark · 1980	1	2019–2019
Olson v. Olson green ark · 2014	1	2019–2019
State v. D.S. green ark · 2011	1	2018–2018
Buckley v. State green ark · 2002	1	2015–2015
Lee v. Daniel green ark · 2002	1	2015–2015
Lopez-Deleon v. State neutral arkctapp · 2014	1	2015–2015
Lard v. State green ark · 2014	1	2014–2014
J.S. v. State green arkctapp · 2009	1	2013–2013
Dansby v. Dansby green arkctapp · 2004	1	2010–2010
DeAsis v. State green ark · 2005	1	2006–2006
MacK v. State green ark · 1995	1	2005–2005
Gondolfi v. Clinger green ark · 2003	1	2005–2005
Elmore v. State green ark · 1991	1	2003–2003
O’connor v. Ohio green scotus · 1966	1	2003–2003
State v. Donahue green ark · 1998	1	1999–1999
Collins v. State green ark · 1996	1	1998–1998
Friar v. State green ark · 1993	1	1997–1997
Johnson v. State green ark · 1992	1	1995–1995
Byrd v. State green ark · 1994	1	1995–1995
Buchmann v. Washington green scotus · 1992	1	1995–1995
Dana v. Department of Corrections green scotus · 1992	1	1995–1995

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501 (9) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341 (8) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-125 (6) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 10 (5) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101 (5) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202 (5) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-102 (4) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-602 (4) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-603 (4) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-604 (4) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-120 (3) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 16-97-103 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

LA 515 (1978–2026) FL 314 (1978–2026) VA 294 (1982–2026) TX 181 (1978–2025) AL 177 (1987–2026) KS 154 (1965–2026) IN 124 (1976–2026) MS 105 (1967–2026) AR 99 (1992–2026) GA 46 (1978–2026) CO 32 (1967–2025) WV 21 (1986–2025) MD 20 (1999–2025) OH 19 (1991–2026) ID 19 (2010–2025) CA 18 (1983–2026) KY 16 (1977–2026) NH 16 (1979–2023) IL 15 (1966–2025) PA 14 (1967–2019) NV 12 (1978–2026) MT 10 (1998–2026) DC 10 (1986–2025) MO 10 (1975–2018) NE 8 (2006–2026) AK 6 (1968–2018) TN 6 (1978–2021) MA 5 (1982–2023) SC 5 (1991–2008) AZ 5 (1974–2009) RI 5 (1965–1999) UT 4 (1985–2017) MI 4 (1994–2015) CT 4 (2002–2019) WI 4 (1978–2002) NY 3 (1989–2009) MN 3 (2006–2015) WA 2 (2012–2016) IA 2 (1978–2022) ME 2 (1979–2015) NC 2 (1968–2015) NM 2 (2013–2013) DE 2 (1980–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check