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). -3- cause or to meet the ends of justice, Boyd-Goode has not invoked either exception, and we do not consider them sua sponte.

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).

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“Specificity and timeliness undergird the contemporaneous-objection rule [and] animate its highly practical purpose.” Bethea v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 730 , 743 (2019).

2026“Specificity and timeliness undergird the contemporaneous-objection rule, animate its highly practical purpose, and allow the rule to resonate with simplicity.” Bethea v. Commonwealth, 297 Va. 730 , 743 (2019).

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.”).

2026“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to alert opposing counsel to the issue and to provide the trial court an opportunity to intelligently rule on the issue.” Id.

2026“The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to alert opposing counsel to the issue and to provide the trial court an opportunity to intelligently rule on the issue,” Commonwealth v. Carolino, 303 Va. 399 , 409 (2024), thus “avoiding unnecessary appeals and reversals,” Brown v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 210 , 217 (2010).

2025“Accordingly, a claim that a court lacks active -8- jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and is subject to the contemporaneous objection rule.” Id.

2024Riddick, 72 Va. App. at 143 (noting that “a claim that a court lacks active jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and is subject to the contemporaneous objection rule”).

2026“Th[is] burden of establishing a manifest injustice is a heavy one, and it rests with the appellant.” Cisneros, 82 Va. App. at 170-71 (alteration in original) (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)).

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).

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”).

2026“Specificity and timeliness undergird the contemporaneous-objection rule, animate its highly practical purpose, and allow the rule to resonate with simplicity.” Id.; see Scialdone v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 422 , 437 (2010) (explaining that a specific, contemporaneous 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” and that “a specific, contemporaneous objection gives the opposing party the opportunity to meet the objection at that stage of the proceedi

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.

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)).

2022See Amos, 287 Va. at 307-08 (noting that the contemporaneous objection rule “focuses on the actions of the litigant” and that “[w]hen failure to raise a contemporaneous objection . . . results from a party’s actions, the contemporaneous objection exception of Code § 8.01-384(A) does not apply, and the preservation issue will be decided under the provisions of Rule 5A:18 or Rule 5:25” and accompanying case law; only “when a party is denied the opportunity to raise a contemporaneous objection, [will] the . . . exception . . . appl[y]”); Maxwell, 287 Va. at 269 (rejecting the argument that issues

2022See Amos, 287 Va. at 307-08 (noting that the contemporaneous objection rule “focuses on the actions of the litigant” and that “[w]hen failure to raise a contemporaneous objection . . . results from a party’s actions, the contemporaneous objection exception of Code § 8.01-384(A) does not apply, and the preservation issue will be decided under the provisions of Rule 5A:18 or Rule 5:25” and accompanying case law; only “when a party is denied the opportunity to raise a contemporaneous objection, [will] the . . . exception . . . appl[y]”); Maxwell, 287 Va. at 269 (rejecting the argument that issues

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).

2023“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.” Id. at 298 (quoting Creamer v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 185, 195 (2015)).

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

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).