contemporaneous objection rule in Missouri

10 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Weichtgreen moctapp · 2000 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2005 2 sentences 2005Vaughn stated, “ ‘Because trial strategy looms as an important consideration in any trial, assertions of plain error concerning matters contained in closing argument are generally denied without explanation.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Weicht, 23 S.W.3d 922, 930 (Mo.App. 2000). 2000This is because “alleged errors committed in closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error rule unless they are determined to have a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Mo. banc 1988). “ ‘Because trial strategy looms as an important consideration in any trial, assertions of plain error concerning matters contained in closing argument are generally denied without explication.’ ” State v. Weicht, 23 S.W.3d 922, 930 (Mo.App.2000) (involving allegations of improper vouching by the prosecutor)(quoting State v. Bogard, 836 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Mo.App.1992	2	2
State v. Kempkergreen mo · 1992 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2005 2 sentences 2005The state argues that under these circumstances, plain error review is inappropriate; that “[t]rial judges are not expected to assist counsel in trying cases, and trial judges should act sua sponte only in exceptional circumstances.” This court stated in State v. Vaughn, 32 S.W.3d 798, 800 (Mo.App.2000), with respect to a claim of plain error directed to closing argument of the state, “Fatal to Appellant’s argument is the absence in the record of a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel at the time of the prosecutor’s purported improper closing arguments. ‘[P]lain error will seldom be fo 2000Fatal to Appellant’s argument is the absence in the record of a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel at the time of the prosecutor’s purported improper closing arguments. “[P]lain error will seldom be found in unobjected closing argument.” State v. Kempker, 824 S.W.2d 909, 911 (Mo. banc 1992).	2	2
Henry v. Mississippigreen scotus · 1965 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1975–1980 2 sentences 1980The contemporaneous objection rule does serve a legitimate state interest. 1 “By immediately apprising the trial judge of the objection, counsel gives the court the opportunity to conduct the trial without using the tainted evidence.” Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 448 , 85 S.Ct. 564, 567 , 13 L.Ed.2d 408, 413 (1965). 1980The contemporaneous objection rule does serve a legitimate state interest. 1 “By immediately apprising the trial judge of the objection, counsel gives the court the opportunity to conduct the trial without using the tainted evidence.” Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 448 , 85 S.Ct. 564, 567 , 13 L.Ed.2d 408, 413 (1965).	1	2
Puckett v. United Statesgreen scotus · 2009 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018"Sandbagging is the practice in which counsel ... remains intentionally silent when a possible error occurs at trial, with the hope of preserving the issue for appeal if the trial court does not correct the error." State v. Houston , 467 S.W.3d 894 , 900 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). "[S]andbagging tactics will not usually preserve the issue for appeal, because the defendant must make objections promptly to alert the trial court to the possible error." Id. ; see also Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129 , 134-35, 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) ("the contemporaneous-objection rule prevents 2018"Sandbagging is the practice in which counsel ... remains intentionally silent when a possible error occurs at trial, with the hope of preserving the issue for appeal if the trial court does not correct the error." State v. Houston , 467 S.W.3d 894 , 900 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). "[S]andbagging tactics will not usually preserve the issue for appeal, because the defendant must make objections promptly to alert the trial court to the possible error." Id. ; see also Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129 , 134-35, 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) ("the contemporaneous-objection rule prevents	1	1
United States v. Gambinogreen ca2 · 1991 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005Gambino, 951 F.2d at 501-02; Fiorilla, 850 F.2d at 176 ; Amos, 496 F.2d at 1273 ; Lee, 961 P.2d at 1210 .	1	1
State v. Vaughngreen moctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005The state argues that under these circumstances, plain error review is inappropriate; that “[t]rial judges are not expected to assist counsel in trying cases, and trial judges should act sua sponte only in exceptional circumstances.” This court stated in State v. Vaughn, 32 S.W.3d 798, 800 (Mo.App.2000), with respect to a claim of plain error directed to closing argument of the state, “Fatal to Appellant’s argument is the absence in the record of a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel at the time of the prosecutor’s purported improper closing arguments. ‘[P]lain error will seldom be fo	1	1
State v. Sidebottomgreen mo · 1988 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000This is because “alleged errors committed in closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error rule unless they are determined to have a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Mo. banc 1988). “ ‘Because trial strategy looms as an important consideration in any trial, assertions of plain error concerning matters contained in closing argument are generally denied without explication.’ ” State v. Weicht, 23 S.W.3d 922, 930 (Mo.App.2000) (involving allegations of improper vouching by the prosecutor)(quoting State v. Bogard, 836 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Mo.App.1992	1	1
State v. Bogardgreen moctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000This is because “alleged errors committed in closing argument do not justify relief under the plain error rule unless they are determined to have a decisive effect on the jury.” State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Mo. banc 1988). “ ‘Because trial strategy looms as an important consideration in any trial, assertions of plain error concerning matters contained in closing argument are generally denied without explication.’ ” State v. Weicht, 23 S.W.3d 922, 930 (Mo.App.2000) (involving allegations of improper vouching by the prosecutor)(quoting State v. Bogard, 836 S.W.2d 87, 89 (Mo.App.1992	1	1
McCrary v. Stategreen moctapp · 1975 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 1 sentence 1980See McCrary v. State, 529 S.W.2d 467 (Mo.App.1975).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Wainwright v. Sykes green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 1979We agree with the statement of the Wainwright court that, “Any procedural rule which encourages the result that [trial] proceedings be as free of error as possible is thoroughly desirable, and the contemporaneous objection rule surely falls within this classification.” Id. at 90 , 97 S.Ct. at 2508 . 1979We agree with the statement of the Wainwright court that, “Any procedural rule which encourages the result that [trial] proceedings be as free of error as possible is thoroughly desirable, and the contemporaneous objection rule surely falls within this classification.” Id. at 90 , 97 S.Ct. at 2508 .	3	1978–1980
Lindsey Masonry Co. v. Jenkins & Associates Inc. green moctapp · 1995 1 sentence 2018In short, "[a] party cannot stand idly by not making an objection and not bringing to the attention of the trial court [its alleged] errors; gamble on a favorable verdict; and then, when the result is adverse, complain." Lindsey Masonry Co. v. Jenkins & Assoc. , 897 S.W.2d 6 , 10 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995).	1	2018–2018
State v. Houston green moctapp · 2015 2 sentences 2018"Sandbagging is the practice in which counsel ... remains intentionally silent when a possible error occurs at trial, with the hope of preserving the issue for appeal if the trial court does not correct the error." State v. Houston , 467 S.W.3d 894 , 900 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). "[S]andbagging tactics will not usually preserve the issue for appeal, because the defendant must make objections promptly to alert the trial court to the possible error." Id. ; see also Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129 , 134-35, 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) ("the contemporaneous-objection rule prevents 2018"Sandbagging is the practice in which counsel ... remains intentionally silent when a possible error occurs at trial, with the hope of preserving the issue for appeal if the trial court does not correct the error." State v. Houston , 467 S.W.3d 894 , 900 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). "[S]andbagging tactics will not usually preserve the issue for appeal, because the defendant must make objections promptly to alert the trial court to the possible error." Id. ; see also Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129 , 134-35, 129 S.Ct. 1423 , 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) ("the contemporaneous-objection rule prevents	1	2018–2018
State v. Lee green idahoctapp · 1998 1 sentence 2005Gambino, 951 F.2d at 501-02; Fiorilla, 850 F.2d at 176 ; Amos, 496 F.2d at 1273 ; Lee, 961 P.2d at 1210 .	1	2005–2005
United States v. John Fiorilla, at No. 87-5445. United States of America v. Mary Fiorilla, at No. 87-5446 green ca3 · 1988 1 sentence 2005Gambino, 951 F.2d at 501-02; Fiorilla, 850 F.2d at 176 ; Amos, 496 F.2d at 1273 ; Lee, 961 P.2d at 1210 .	1	2005–2005
Lucien v. Amos v. United States green ca8 · 1974 1 sentence 2005Gambino, 951 F.2d at 501-02; Fiorilla, 850 F.2d at 176 ; Amos, 496 F.2d at 1273 ; Lee, 961 P.2d at 1210 .	1	2005–2005
Strickland v. Washington green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 1988The relationship between the two doctrines is discussed in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2070 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 700 . 1988The relationship between the two doctrines is discussed in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2070 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 700 .	1	1988–1988
State v. Bravo green arizctapp · 1981 2 sentences 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977). 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977).	1	1988–1988
Buck v. State green gactapp · 1979 2 sentences 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977). 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977).	1	1988–1988
Lollar v. State green alacrimapp · 1982 2 sentences 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977). 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977).	1	1988–1988
Francis v. Henderson green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1988In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, such a complaint will be heard only upon a showing of cause for noncompliance and of actual prejudice resulting from a constitutional violation as delineated in Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 , 96 S.Ct. 1708 , 48 L.Ed.2d 149 (1976). 1988In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, such a complaint will be heard only upon a showing of cause for noncompliance and of actual prejudice resulting from a constitutional violation as delineated in Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 , 96 S.Ct. 1708 , 48 L.Ed.2d 149 (1976).	1	1988–1988
Bias v. State green oklacrimapp · 1977 2 sentences 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977). 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977).	1	1988–1988
Bruno v. Kalmich green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977). 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977).	1	1988–1988
Berry v. Judiciary Commission green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977). 1988Lollar v. State, 422 So.2d 809 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); State v. Bravo, 131 Ariz. 168 , 639 P.2d 358 (Ariz.App.1981); Buck v. State, 151 Ga.App. 252 , 259 S.E.2d 493 (1979); Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla.Crim.App. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 940 , 98 S.Ct. 432 , 54 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977).	1	1988–1988
State v. Yowell green mo · 1974 1 sentence 1983The seminal case discussing that rule is State v. Yowell, 513 S.W.2d 397 (Mo. banc 1974).	1	1983–1983

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