contemporaneous objection rule in Virginia

2026“The purpose of this contemporaneous objection requirement is to allow the trial court a fair opportunity to resolve the issue at trial, thereby preventing unnecessary appeals and retrials.” Creamer v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 185, 195 (2015).

2026“The purpose of this contemporaneous objection requirement is to allow the trial court a fair opportunity to resolve the issue at trial, thereby preventing unnecessary appeals and retrials.” Creamer v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 185, 195 (2015); see Bethea v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 730 , 743-44 (2019).

2026It must be both specific and timely—so that the trial judge would know the particular point being made in time to do something about it.” Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 351, 356 (2011); see Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010) (explaining that to satisfy the contemporaneous-objection rule, an objection must be made “at a point in the proceeding when the trial court is in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error”).

2025Pursuant to Rule 5A:18, “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable this Court to attain the ends of justice.” “The goal of the contemporaneous objection rule is to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials by allowing the trial judge to intelligently consider an issue and, if necessary, to take corrective action.” Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 351, 356 (2011) (quoting Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 480 (

2025Pursuant to Rule 5A:18, “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable this Court to attain the ends of justice.” “The goal of the contemporaneous objection rule is to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials by allowing the trial judge to intelligently consider an issue and, if necessary, to take corrective action.” Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 351, 356 (2011) (quoting Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 476, 480 (

2011“The goal of the contemporaneous objection rule is to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials by allowing the trial judge to intelligently consider an issue and, if necessary, to take corrective action.” Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 476, 480 , 405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991) (en banc) (citing Head v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 163, 167 , 348 S.E.2d 423, 426 (1986)).

2024See Rule 5A:18; Williams v. Cnty. of Gloucester Sheriff’s Dep’t, 266 Va. 409, 411 (2003) (“The contemporaneous objection rule, embodied in Rule 5A:18 . . . , is based on the principle that a litigant has the responsibility to afford a court the opportunity to consider and correct a perceived error before such error is brought to the appellate court for review.”).

2024“The contemporaneous objection rule[] embodied in Rule 5A:18 . . . is based on the principle that a litigant has the responsibility to afford a court the opportunity to consider and correct a perceived error before such error is brought to the appellate court for review.” Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff’s Dep’t, 266 Va. 409, 411 (2003).

2026“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule ‘is to avoid unnecessary appeals by affording the trial judge an opportunity to rule intelligently on objections.’” Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 258 , 264-65 (2014) (quoting State Highway Comm’r v. Easley, 215 Va. 197, 201 (1974)). 5 Appellant also assigns error to the trial court’s insertion of “on or about” language into the jury instructions.

2025See Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 258 , 264-65 (2014) (“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule ‘is to avoid unnecessary appeals by affording the trial judge an opportunity to rule intelligently on objections.’” (quoting State Highway Comm’r v. Easley, 215 Va. 197, 201 (1974))).

2024This Court has often stated that “a specific argument must be made to the trial court at the appropriate time, or the allegation of error will not be considered on appeal.” Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 760 (2003) (en banc); see also Commonwealth v. Minitee, No. 210031 (Va. Dec. 16, 2021) (order) (The Supreme Court has held, “To preserve the issue of manifest necessity, the contemporaneous objection rule required Minitee to object not only to the mistrial, but to the precise point that a manifest necessity did not exist to declare the mistrial.”).

2018See Robinson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 574, 576 , 413 S.E.2d 885, 886 (1992) (“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule embodied in Rule 5A:18 is to inform the trial judge of the action complained of in order to give the judge the opportunity to consider the issue and to take timely corrective action . . . .”); see also Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 760 , 589 -7- S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc) (“Making one specific argument on an issue does not preserve a separate legal point on the same issue for review.”).

2021Under the contemporaneous-objection rule, “a litigant has the responsibility to afford [the Commission] the opportunity to consider and correct a perceived error before such error is brought to the appellate court for review.” Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff’s Dep’t, 266 Va. 409, 411 (2003) (quoting Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 773 (1977)); see also Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244, 253 (2011).

2020“The contemporaneous objection rule, embodied in Rule 5A:18 in the Court of Appeals . . . is based on the principle that a litigant has the responsibility to afford [the Commission] the opportunity to consider and correct a perceived error before such error is brought to the appellate court for review.” Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff’s Dept., 266 Va. 409, 411 (2003) (quoting Reid v. Baumgardner, 217 Va. 769, 773 (1977)); see also Hodnett v. Stanco Masonry, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244, 253 (2011).

2025“It is well settled that the question of a variance between an indictment and the proof offered at trial is subject to the contemporaneous objection rule.” Bass, 292 Va. at 27 n.4. -9- Here, Whitted concedes that he did not raise this argument at trial.

2023See Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19 , 27 n.4 (2016) (“It is well settled that the question of a variance between an indictment and the proof offered at trial is subject to the contemporaneous objection rule.”); Banks v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 273, 289-90 (2017) (holding that the failure to assign error as required by the rules of court waives a challenge that the charging document was defective or that there was a fatal variance between the charging document and the proof).

2023“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule ‘is to avoid unnecessary appeals by affording the trial judge an opportunity to rule intelligently on objections.’ For the circuit court to rule intelligently, the parties must inform the circuit court ‘of the precise points of objection in the minds of counsel.’” Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 258 , 264-65 (2014) (first quoting State Highway Comm’r v. Easley, 215 Va. 197, 201 (1974); and then quoting Gooch v. City of Lynchburg, 201 Va. 172, 177 (1959)).

2023“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule ‘is to avoid unnecessary appeals by affording the trial judge an opportunity to rule intelligently on objections.’ For the circuit court to rule intelligently, the parties must inform the circuit court ‘of the precise points of objection in the minds of counsel.’” Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 258 , 264-65 (2014) (first quoting State Highway Comm’r v. Easley, 215 Va. 197, 201 (1974); and then quoting Gooch v. City of Lynchburg, 201 Va. 172, 177 (1959)).

2018See Robinson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 574, 576 , 413 S.E.2d 885, 886 (1992) (“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule embodied in Rule 5A:18 is to inform the trial judge of the action complained of in order to give the judge the opportunity to consider the issue and to take timely corrective action . . . .”); see also Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 760 , 589 -7- S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc) (“Making one specific argument on an issue does not preserve a separate legal point on the same issue for review.”).

2018See Robinson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 574, 576 , 413 S.E.2d 885, 886 (1992) (“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule embodied in Rule 5A:18 is to inform the trial judge of the action complained of in order to give the judge the opportunity to consider the issue and to take timely corrective action . . . .”); see also Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 760 , 589 -7- S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc) (“Making one specific argument on an issue does not preserve a separate legal point on the same issue for review.”).

2025The Good Cause Exception Does Not Apply to Appellant’s Case As Rule 5A:18 plainly states, this Court may consider the merits of an unpreserved argument only “for good cause shown or . . . to attain the ends of justice.” (Emphasis added).; see also Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 655, 667 (2011) (acknowledging that “Rule 5A:18 is not an altogether static rule in that it does provide two exceptions to the contemporaneous objection rule” (emphasis added)).

2025The Good Cause Exception Does Not Apply to Appellant’s Case As Rule 5A:18 plainly states, this Court may consider the merits of an unpreserved argument only “for good cause shown or . . . to attain the ends of justice.” (Emphasis added).; see also Perry v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 655, 667 (2011) (acknowledging that “Rule 5A:18 is not an altogether static rule in that it does provide two exceptions to the contemporaneous objection rule” (emphasis added)).

2021The primary purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to give the circuit court “an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals.” West v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 327, 337 (2004) 2 This language was added pursuant to a 2018 amendment. 2018 Va. Acts ch. 583.

2018The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to give the circuit court “an opportunity to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thus avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals.” West v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 327, 337 , 597 S.E.2d 274, 278 (2004).

2023See Murillo- Rodriguez, 279 Va. at 79 ; Bethea, 297 Va. at 743 (“Specificity and timeliness undergird the contemporaneous-objection rule.”).

2018Floyd, 219 Va. at 584 , 249 S.E.2d at 176 ; see also Murillo-Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 64, 79 , 688 S.E.2d 199, 207-08 (2010) (stating that the primary purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to allow the trial court “to rule intelligently on the issues presented, thereby avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals.

2025“The burden of establishing a manifest injustice is a heavy one, and it rests with the appellant.” Conley v. Commonwealth, 74 Va. App. 658 , 683 (2022) (quoting Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 210 (2016) (en banc)).

2023“Specificity and timeliness undergird the contemporaneous-objection rule . . . [‘]so that the trial judge . . . know[s] the particular point being made in time to do something about it.’” Bethea v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 730 , 743 (2019) (quoting Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 351, 356 (2011)). “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly,’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21 (1997)).

2018Rule 5A:18, often referred to as the contemporaneous objection rule, provides in part that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling . . . .” “The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is ‘to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 , 764 S.E.2d 293, 295 (2014) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 1

2018Rule 5A:18, often referred to as the contemporaneous objection rule, provides in part that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling . . . .” “The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is ‘to alert the trial judge to possible error so that the judge may consider the issue intelligently and take any corrective actions necessary to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.’” Fountain v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 51, 56 , 764 S.E.2d 293, 295 (2014) (quoting Martin v. Commonwealth, 1

2014“If a closing argument adequately advises the circuit court of the defendant’s position and if it is clear that the [circuit] court considered the issue and had an opportunity to take corrective action, the contemporaneous objection rule is satisfied.” Fortune v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 225, 228 , 416 S.E.2d 25, 27 (1992).

2014“If a closing argument adequately advises the circuit court of the defendant’s position and if it is clear that the [circuit] court considered the issue and had an opportunity to take corrective action, the contemporaneous objection rule is satisfied.” Fortune v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 225, 228 , 416 S.E.2d 25, 27 (1992).

2014“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule embodied in Rule 5A:18 is to inform the trial judge of the action complained of in order to give the judge the opportunity to consider the issue and to take timely corrective action, if warranted, in order to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.” Robinson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 574, 576 , 413 S.E.2d 885, 886 (1992) (citing Hogan v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 36, 45 , 360 S.E.2d 371, 376 (1987)).

2014“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule embodied in Rule 5A:18 is to inform the trial judge of the action complained of in order to give the judge the opportunity to consider the issue and to take timely corrective action, if warranted, in order to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials.” Robinson v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 574, 576 , 413 S.E.2d 885, 886 (1992) (citing Hogan v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 36, 45 , 360 S.E.2d 371, 376 (1987)).

2011“The goal of the contemporaneous objection rule is to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials by allowing the trial judge to intelligently consider an issue and, if necessary, to take corrective action.” Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 476, 480 , 405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991) (en banc) (citing Head v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 163, 167 , 348 S.E.2d 423, 426 (1986)).

2011“The goal of the contemporaneous objection rule is to avoid unnecessary appeals, reversals and mistrials by allowing the trial judge to intelligently consider an issue and, if necessary, to take corrective action.” Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 476, 480 , 405 S.E.2d 1, 2 (1991) (en banc) (citing Head v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 163, 167 , 348 S.E.2d 423, 426 (1986)).

2024“Therefore, ‘in examining a case for miscarriage of justice, we do not simply review the sufficiency of the evidence under the usual standard, but instead determine 13 Although the appellant cites Rule 5:25, the contemporaneous objection rule that may apply to appeals to the Supreme Court of Virginia, we apply Rule 5A:18, the version of the rule potentially applicable to appeals in this Court. - 17 - whether the record contains affirmative evidence of innocence or lack of a criminal offense.’” Id. (quoting Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681, 695 (2011)).

2023“Specificity and timeliness undergird the contemporaneous-objection rule . . . [‘]so that the trial judge . . . know[s] the particular point being made in time to do something about it.’” Bethea v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 730 , 743 (2019) (quoting Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 351, 356 (2011)). “‘The ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly,’ and applies only in the extraordinary situation where a miscarriage of justice has occurred.” Holt v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 199, 209 (2016) (en banc) (quoting Redman v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 215, 220-21 (1997)).

2019See, e.g. , Riner v. Commonwealth , 268 Va. 296 , 325, 601 S.E.2d 555 (2004) (holding that an appellant waived a challenge to double-tiered hearsay by failing to specifically object to the trial court's incomplete ruling as to only one of the two tiers of hearsay). 3 Specificity and timeliness undergird the contemporaneous-objection rule, animate its highly practical purpose, and allow the rule to resonate with simplicity: "Not just any objection will do.

2019See, e.g. , Riner v. Commonwealth , 268 Va. 296 , 325, 601 S.E.2d 555 (2004) (holding that an appellant waived a challenge to double-tiered hearsay by failing to specifically object to the trial court's incomplete ruling as to only one of the two tiers of hearsay). 3 Specificity and timeliness undergird the contemporaneous-objection rule, animate its highly practical purpose, and allow the rule to resonate with simplicity: "Not just any objection will do.

2013Second, there are situations when a delayed objection does no good. 3 A principal purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to place the trial court “in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.” Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002) (citation omitted).

2013Second, there are situations when a delayed objection does no good. 3 A principal purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to place the trial court “in a position, not only to consider the asserted error, but also to rectify the effect of the asserted error.” Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 33 , 563 S.E.2d 727, 731 (2002) (citation omitted).

2020Known as the contemporaneous objection rule, it “require[s] that objections be promptly brought to the attention of the trial court with sufficient specificity that the alleged error can be dealt with and timely addressed and corrected when necessary.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 131 (1989).

2018Accordingly, he asks this Court to apply the ends of justice exception to the contemporaneous objection requirement. “[T]he ends of justice exception is narrow and is to be used sparingly.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 126, 132 , 380 S.E.2d 8, 11 (1989).

2026An objection “must be both specific and timely—so that the trial judge would know the particular point being made in time to do something about it.” Id. (quoting Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 351, 356 (2011)). “‘Good cause’ relates to the reason why an objection was not stated at the time of the ruling.” Pope v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 486, 508 (2012) (quoting Campbell v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 988, 996 (1992) (en banc)).

2013Campbell v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 988, 995-96 , 421 S.E.2d 652, 656-57 (1992) (Barrow, J., concurring) (citations omitted).

2026Rule 5A:18 does “contain[] an exception that allows us to reach issues on appeal that were not raised below ‘for good cause shown or to enable [us] to attain the ends of justice.’” Merritt v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 452, 459-60 (2018).

2024“Rule 5A:18, often referred to as the contemporaneous objection rule, provides in part that ‘[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling . . . .’” Merritt v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 452, 459 (2018) (alterations in original) (quoting Rule 5A:18).

2022Rule 5A:18 provides that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable this Court to attain the ends of justice.” “Specificity and timeliness undergird the contemporaneous-objection rule . . . [‘]so that the trial judge . . . know[s] the particular point being made in time to do something about it.’” Bethea v. - 11 - Commonwealth, 297 Va. 730 , 743 (2019) (quoting Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 351, 356 (2011)); see Scialdone v.

2016See Weidman, 241 Va. at 44 , 400 S.E.2d at 167 (explaining that the purposes of the contemporaneous objection requirement are to allow the trial court the opportunity to rule on the issue and the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection). -6- at oral argument that she did not allege that the petition was substantively in error nor did she challenge any part of the notice or hearing she received.

2025The Brandon Court stated that the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule is to “protect the trial court from appeals based upon undisclosed grounds, to prevent the setting of traps on appeal, to enable the trial judge to rule intelligently, and to avoid unnecessary reversals and mistrials.” Id. at 255 (emphases added) (quoting Reid v. Boyle, 259 Va. 356, 372 (2000)).

2021That rule exists to protect the tribunal below “from appeals based upon undisclosed grounds, to prevent the setting of traps on appeal,” to allow the tribunal to “rule intelligently, and to avoid unnecessary reversals and mistrials.” Williams, 266 Va. at 411 (quoting Reid v. Boyle, 259 Va. 356, 372 (2000)).

2025See Rule 5A:18; Clark v. Commonwealth, 78 Va. App. 726 , 767 (2023) (applying the contemporaneous objection rule and noting that “this Court ‘will not consider an argument on appeal [that] was not presented to the trial court’” (alteration in original) (quoting Farnsworth v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 490, 500 (2004))).

2021The contemporaneous objection rule “applies to bar even constitutional claims.” Stokes, 61 Va. App. at 396 (quoting Farnsworth v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 490, 500 (2004)).

2024Id.; Banks v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 273, 285 (2017).

2023See Commonwealth v. Bass, 292 Va. 19 , 27 n.4 (2016) (“It is well settled that the question of a variance between an indictment and the proof offered at trial is subject to the contemporaneous objection rule.”); Banks v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. App. 273, 289-90 (2017) (holding that the failure to assign error as required by the rules of court waives a challenge that the charging document was defective or that there was a fatal variance between the charging document and the proof).

2023Consequently, the contemporaneous objection rule prevents the Court from considering his assignment of error on the merits. “[T]he doctrine of judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases ‘on the best and 4 narrowest grounds available.’” Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015)). -5- Rule 5A:18, which sets out the contemporaneous objection rule applicable in the Court of Appeals, provides that “[n]o ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an objection was stated with reasonable certainty

2022See Commonwealth v. White, 293 Va. 411, 419 (2017) (recognizing that “judicial restraint dictates that we decide cases on the best and narrowest grounds available” (quoting Commonwealth v. Swann, 290 Va. 194, 196 (2015))). -4- Nonetheless, we consider whether the dissent has properly applied the terms of Code § 8.01-384(A) in determining that appellant was excused from the contemporaneous objection requirement, a review that implicates the use and the purpose served by the contemporaneous objection rule under Virginia law, as well as the exceptions to the rule.

2025In addition, we “will not consider an argument that differs from the specific argument presented to the trial court, even if it relates to the same general issue.” Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 761 (2003) (en banc) (citing Floyd v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 575, 584 (1978)). “[T]he argument asserted on appeal [must] be the same as the contemporaneous argument at trial.” Bethea v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 730 , 743 (2019). “[N]either an appellant nor an appellate court should ‘put a different twist on a question that is at odds with the question presented to the trial court.’” Id. at 744 (

2020See Chavez, 69 Va. App. at 162-63 ; see also Bethea, 297 Va. at 744 (noting that a litigant does not meet the requirements of the contemporaneous objection rule by “put[ting] a different twist on a question that is at odds with the question presented to the trial court” (quoting Commonwealth v. Shifflett, 257 Va. 34, 44 (1999))).