contemporaneous objection rule in Georgia

2013Georgia “has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.” State v. Larocque, 268 Ga. 352, 353 ( 489 SE2d 806 ) (1997) (citation omitted).

2013Georgia “has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.” State v. Larocque, 268 Ga. 352, 353 ( 489 SE2d 806 ) (1997) (citation omitted).

2021The contemporaneous objection rule, which has been a cornerstone of Georgia trial practice for over 150 years, 2 generally requires that, “in order to preserve a point of error for the consideration of an appellate court, counsel must take exception to the alleged error at the earliest possible opportunity in the progress of the case by a 2See, e.g., Goodtitle v. Roe, 20 Ga. 135, 140 (1856); Burtine v. State, 18 Ga. 534, 537 (1855). 6 proper objection made a part of the record.” Sharpe v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 267, 267 (1) (476 SE2d 722) (1996) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2021The contemporaneous objection rule, which has been a cornerstone of Georgia trial practice for over 150 years, 2 generally requires that, “in order to preserve a point of error for the consideration of an appellate court, counsel must take exception to the alleged error at the earliest possible opportunity in the progress of the case by a 2See, e.g., Goodtitle v. Roe, 20 Ga. 135, 140 (1856); Burtine v. State, 18 Ga. 534, 537 (1855). 6 proper objection made a part of the record.” Sharpe v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 267, 267 (1) (476 SE2d 722) (1996) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2026See Williams v. Harvey, 311 Ga. 439, 442 (2021) (explaining the na- ture and importance of the contemporaneous objection rule).

2025We first observe that Cagle failed to object to the trial court’s oral pronouncement that, “based on the documents filed in the summary judgment, I’m going to grant the directed verdict.” See Williams v. 10 Harvey, 311 Ga. 439, 442 (1) ( 858 SE2d 479 ) (2021) (“The contemporaneous objection rule, which has been a cornerstone of Georgia trial practice for over 150 years, generally requires that, in order to preserve a point of error for the consideration of an appellate court, counsel must take exception to the alleged error at the earliest possible opportunity in the progress of the case by a

2019Ford v. State , 298 Ga. 560 , 562 (2), 783 S.E.2d 906 (2016) ("The contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of prosecutorial misconduct.") (Citation and punctuation omitted.).

2019Ford v. State , 298 Ga. 560 , 562 (2), 783 S.E.2d 906 (2016) ("The contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of prosecutorial misconduct.") (Citation and punctuation omitted.).

2021This requirement affords the trial court the 2 See, e.g., Goodtitle v. Roe, 20 Ga. 135, 140 (1856); Burtine v. State, 18 Ga. 534, 537 (1855). 6 opportunity to take remedial action if necessary at the time the alleged error is made, thereby reducing the likelihood that a motion for new trial or appeal will result in reversal of the final judgment.

2021The contemporaneous objection rule, which has been a cornerstone of Georgia trial practice for over 150 years, 2 generally requires that, “in order to preserve a point of error for the consideration of an appellate court, counsel must take exception to the alleged error at the earliest possible opportunity in the progress of the case by a 2See, e.g., Goodtitle v. Roe, 20 Ga. 135, 140 (1856); Burtine v. State, 18 Ga. 534, 537 (1855). 6 proper objection made a part of the record.” Sharpe v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 267, 267 (1) (476 SE2d 722) (1996) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2015See Stacey v. State, 292 Ga. 838, 843 ( 741 SE2d 881 ) (2013) (“Georgia ‘has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.’ ” (citation omitted)); State v. Hargis, 294 Ga. 818, 821 ( 756 SE2d 529 ) (2014) (holding that if a recusal motion is not filed within five days of the movant’s first learning of the alleged grounds for disqualification, “the question of disqualification is not preserved for appellate review”). 3.

2015See Stacey v. State, 292 Ga. 838, 843 ( 741 SE2d 881 ) (2013) (“Georgia ‘has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.’ ” (citation omitted)); State v. Hargis, 294 Ga. 818, 821 ( 756 SE2d 529 ) (2014) (holding that if a recusal motion is not filed within five days of the movant’s first learning of the alleged grounds for disqualification, “the question of disqualification is not preserved for appellate review”). 3.

2026See also Puckett v. United States, 556 US 129, 135 (2009) (explaining that plain error review is a “limited exception” to the contemporaneous objection rule).

2026See also Puckett v. United States, 556 US 129, 135 (2009) (explaining that plain error review is a “limited exception” to the contemporaneous objection rule).

2019See also Duvall v. State , 290 Ga. 475 , 476 (2) (a), 722 S.E.2d 62 (2012) (defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).

2019See also Duvall v. State , 290 Ga. 475 , 476 (2) (a), 722 S.E.2d 62 (2012) (defendant's claim of prosecutorial misconduct cannot be raised for the first time on appeal).

2018See Ledford v. State , 264 Ga. 60 , 67 (18) (a), 439 S.E.2d 917 (1994) ("the contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of prosecutorial misconduct." (Citation and punctuation omitted) ).

2018See Ledford v. State , 264 Ga. 60 , 67 (18) (a), 439 S.E.2d 917 (1994) ("the contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of prosecutorial misconduct." (Citation and punctuation omitted) ).

2015See Stacey v. State, 292 Ga. 838, 843 ( 741 SE2d 881 ) (2013) (“Georgia ‘has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.’ ” (citation omitted)); State v. Hargis, 294 Ga. 818, 821 ( 756 SE2d 529 ) (2014) (holding that if a recusal motion is not filed within five days of the movant’s first learning of the alleged grounds for disqualification, “the question of disqualification is not preserved for appellate review”). 3.

2015See Stacey v. State, 292 Ga. 838, 843 ( 741 SE2d 881 ) (2013) (“Georgia ‘has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.’ ” (citation omitted)); State v. Hargis, 294 Ga. 818, 821 ( 756 SE2d 529 ) (2014) (holding that if a recusal motion is not filed within five days of the movant’s first learning of the alleged grounds for disqualification, “the question of disqualification is not preserved for appellate review”). 3.

2002See Sharpe v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. *269 267 (1) ( 476 SE2d 722 ) (1996) (“The contemporaneous objection rule has long been a mainstay of Georgia trial practice. [Cits.]”); Newton v. State, 226 Ga. App. 501, 503 (3) ( 486 SE2d 715 ) (1997) (failure to make chain of custody objection waives any error); Geoffrion v. State, 224 Ga. App. 775, 779 (6) ( 482 SE2d 450 ) (1997) (chain of custody objection must be contemporaneous with effort to admit the evidence), overruled on other grounds, Mullins v. State, 270 Ga. 450, 451 ( 511 SE2d 165 ) (1999).

2002See Sharpe v. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. *269 267 (1) ( 476 SE2d 722 ) (1996) (“The contemporaneous objection rule has long been a mainstay of Georgia trial practice. [Cits.]”); Newton v. State, 226 Ga. App. 501, 503 (3) ( 486 SE2d 715 ) (1997) (failure to make chain of custody objection waives any error); Geoffrion v. State, 224 Ga. App. 775, 779 (6) ( 482 SE2d 450 ) (1997) (chain of custody objection must be contemporaneous with effort to admit the evidence), overruled on other grounds, Mullins v. State, 270 Ga. 450, 451 ( 511 SE2d 165 ) (1999).

2021This requirement affords the trial court the 2 See, e.g., Goodtitle v. Roe, 20 Ga. 135, 140 (1856); Burtine v. State, 18 Ga. 534, 537 (1855). 6 opportunity to take remedial action if necessary at the time the alleged error is made, thereby reducing the likelihood that a motion for new trial or appeal will result in reversal of the final judgment.

2021The contemporaneous objection rule, which has been a cornerstone of Georgia trial practice for over 150 years, 2 generally requires that, “in order to preserve a point of error for the consideration of an appellate court, counsel must take exception to the alleged error at the earliest possible opportunity in the progress of the case by a 2See, e.g., Goodtitle v. Roe, 20 Ga. 135, 140 (1856); Burtine v. State, 18 Ga. 534, 537 (1855). 6 proper objection made a part of the record.” Sharpe v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 267 Ga. 267, 267 (1) (476 SE2d 722) (1996) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2016“The contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of pros-ecutorial misconduct.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Sanders v. State, 289 Ga. 655 (2) ( 715 SE2d 124 ) (2011).

2016“The contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of pros-ecutorial misconduct.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Sanders v. State, 289 Ga. 655 (2) ( 715 SE2d 124 ) (2011).

2015It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. .. . 2 We note that this holding in Jones is currently on appeal before the Supreme Court of Georgia, Case No. S14G1061. 3 “Georgia has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel [or a pro se defendant] must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. Ap

2015It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. .. . 2 We note that this holding in Jones is currently on appeal before the Supreme Court of Georgia, Case No. S14G1061. 3 “Georgia has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel [or a pro se defendant] must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Fraser v. State, 329 Ga. Ap

2025See Lamar v. State, 297 Ga. 89, 92 (3) ( 772 SE2d 636 ) (2015) (alleged bolstering “was only implied” and there was substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including his own statement “that he had done ‘some real hot sh-t’ while leaving the scene of the crime and that he was later found with the murder weapon”) (citation and punctuation omitted); McNeil v. State, 363 Ga. App. 548 , 549-552 (2) ( 871 SE2d 303 ) (2022) (multiple witnesses 1 This decision later was superseded by statute requiring a contemporaneous objection to a violation of a pretrial motion in limine.

2025See Lamar v. State, 297 Ga. 89, 92 (3) ( 772 SE2d 636 ) (2015) (alleged bolstering “was only implied” and there was substantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including his own statement “that he had done ‘some real hot sh-t’ while leaving the scene of the crime and that he was later found with the murder weapon”) (citation and punctuation omitted); McNeil v. State, 363 Ga. App. 548 , 549-552 (2) ( 871 SE2d 303 ) (2022) (multiple witnesses 1 This decision later was superseded by statute requiring a contemporaneous objection to a violation of a pretrial motion in limine.

2021When a ruled-upon motion in limine is allegedly violated at trial, the opposing party objects and the trial court agrees that the motion in limine has been violated, the court is in a position to take remedial action, including providing violated motion in limine ruling, opposing party did not preserve the issue for appellate review by timely objecting to the argument at trial); People v. Dinapoli, 369 P3d 680, 684 (III) (B) (Colo. App. 2015) (“We perceive no reason why the same preservation rules should not also apply to issues of prosecutorial comment or argument that have been raised and ru

2021Hosp., Inc., 172 Ga. App. 344, 346 (3) ( 323 SE2d 190 ) (1984). 6 See Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 328 (4) ( 781 SE2d 772 ) (2016) (“Georgia’s new Evidence Code, specifically OCGA § 24-1-103, deals with rulings which admit or exclude evidence, and it is well settled that closing arguments do not amount to evidence.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 14 would further the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule — to afford an opportunity for the trial court to remediate error at the time it is made.

2021Hosp., Inc., 172 Ga. App. 344, 346 (3) ( 323 SE2d 190 ) (1984). 6 See Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 328 (4) ( 781 SE2d 772 ) (2016) (“Georgia’s new Evidence Code, specifically OCGA § 24-1-103, deals with rulings which admit or exclude evidence, and it is well settled that closing arguments do not amount to evidence.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 14 would further the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule — to afford an opportunity for the trial court to remediate error at the time it is made.

2021Hosp., Inc., 172 Ga. App. 344, 346 (3) ( 323 SE2d 190 ) (1984). 6 See Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 328 (4) ( 781 SE2d 772 ) (2016) (“Georgia’s new Evidence Code, specifically OCGA § 24-1-103, deals with rulings which admit or exclude evidence, and it is well settled that closing arguments do not amount to evidence.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 14 would further the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule — to afford an opportunity for the trial court to remediate error at the time it is made.

2021Hosp., Inc., 172 Ga. App. 344, 346 (3) ( 323 SE2d 190 ) (1984). 6 See Gates v. State, 298 Ga. 324, 328 (4) ( 781 SE2d 772 ) (2016) (“Georgia’s new Evidence Code, specifically OCGA § 24-1-103, deals with rulings which admit or exclude evidence, and it is well settled that closing arguments do not amount to evidence.” (citation and punctuation omitted)). 14 would further the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule — to afford an opportunity for the trial court to remediate error at the time it is made.

2021See Weldon, 297 Ga. at 541 .

2021See Weldon, 297 Ga. at 541.

2020See Grier v. State, 305 Ga. 882, 887 (3) ( 828 SE2d 304 ) (2019) (“The contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of prosecutorial misconduct.”) (Citation and punctuation omitted.).

2020See Grier v. State, 305 Ga. 882, 887 (3) ( 828 SE2d 304 ) (2019) (“The contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of prosecutorial misconduct.”) (Citation and punctuation omitted.).

2014“Georgia ‘has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.’ ” Johnson v. State, 292 Ga. 785, 787 (3) ( 741 SE2d 627 ) (2013).

2014“Georgia ‘has long followed the contemporaneous objection rule, which provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.’ ” Johnson v. State, 292 Ga. 785, 787 (3) ( 741 SE2d 627 ) (2013).

2013See also Whitehead v. State, 287 Ga. 242, 246 (2) ( 695 SE2d 255 ) (2010) (standard practice requires a party to make an objection and obtain a ruling “before or as the evidence is admitted”).

2013See also Whitehead v. State, 287 Ga. 242, 246 (2) ( 695 SE2d 255 ) (2010) (standard practice requires a party to make an objection and obtain a ruling “before or as the evidence is admitted”).

2012Martin v. State, 281 Ga. 778, 780 (2) ( 642 SE2d 837 ) (2007) (“ ‘the contemporaneous objection rule . . . provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error’ ”).

2012Martin v. State, 281 Ga. 778, 780 (2) ( 642 SE2d 837 ) (2007) (“ ‘the contemporaneous objection rule . . . provides that counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error’ ”).

2012As our Supreme Court has explained before, “the contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of prosecutorial misconduct.” Watson v. State, 278 Ga. 763, 775 (17) ( 604 SE2d 804 ) (2004) (citation and punctuation omitted). 5.

2012As our Supreme Court has explained before, “the contemporaneous objection rule cannot be avoided by characterizing trial occurrences as examples of prosecutorial misconduct.” Watson v. State, 278 Ga. 763, 775 (17) ( 604 SE2d 804 ) (2004) (citation and punctuation omitted). 5.

2011See Howard v. State, 279 Ga. 166, 168 (2) ( 611 SE2d 3 ) (2005) (“In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, defendants have waived the opportunity to raise this issue on appeal.”) (citations omitted); Henderson v. State, 300 Ga. App. 478, 482 (2) ( 685 SE2d 454 ) (2009) (“Under the contemporaneous objection rule, one must object to evidence when it is actually offered, and the failure to object waives any objection which might have been raised.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2011See Howard v. State, 279 Ga. 166, 168 (2) ( 611 SE2d 3 ) (2005) (“In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, defendants have waived the opportunity to raise this issue on appeal.”) (citations omitted); Henderson v. State, 300 Ga. App. 478, 482 (2) ( 685 SE2d 454 ) (2009) (“Under the contemporaneous objection rule, one must object to evidence when it is actually offered, and the failure to object waives any objection which might have been raised.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2011See Howard v. State, 279 Ga. 166, 168 (2) ( 611 SE2d 3 ) (2005) (“In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, defendants have waived the opportunity to raise this issue on appeal.”) (citations omitted); Henderson v. State, 300 Ga. App. 478, 482 (2) ( 685 SE2d 454 ) (2009) (“Under the contemporaneous objection rule, one must object to evidence when it is actually offered, and the failure to object waives any objection which might have been raised.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2011See Howard v. State, 279 Ga. 166, 168 (2) ( 611 SE2d 3 ) (2005) (“In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, defendants have waived the opportunity to raise this issue on appeal.”) (citations omitted); Henderson v. State, 300 Ga. App. 478, 482 (2) ( 685 SE2d 454 ) (2009) (“Under the contemporaneous objection rule, one must object to evidence when it is actually offered, and the failure to object waives any objection which might have been raised.”) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2011The challenged testimony was otherwise admissible under the conspiracy exception under OCGA § 24-3-5, which provides that “[ajfter the fact of conspiracy is proved, the declarations by any one of the conspirators during the pendency of the criminal project shall be admissible against all.” See Ramsey v. State, 165 Ga. App. 854, 857-858 (4) ( 303 SE2d 32 ) (1983).

2011The challenged testimony was otherwise admissible under the conspiracy exception under OCGA § 24-3-5, which provides that “[ajfter the fact of conspiracy is proved, the declarations by any one of the conspirators during the pendency of the criminal project shall be admissible against all.” See Ramsey v. State, 165 Ga. App. 854, 857-858 (4) ( 303 SE2d 32 ) (1983).

2009Smith, P. J., and Bernes, J., concur. 1 See Francis v. Francis, 279 Ga. 248, 249 ( 611 SE2d 45 ) (2005) (the contemporaneous objection rule provides that objections must be made on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the claim of error; objecting on a specific ground waives all other grounds of objection on appeal). 2 Kimbrell v. Effingham Bd. of Tax Assessors, 191 Ga. App. 544, 546 ( 382 SE2d 388 ) (1989). 3 City of McDonough v. Tusk Partners, 268 Ga. 693, 696 (1) ( 492 SE2d 206 ) (1997). 4 Cavin v. Powell, 276 Ga. App. 60 (1) ( 622 SE2d 415 ) (2005).

2009Smith, P. J., and Bernes, J., concur. 1 See Francis v. Francis, 279 Ga. 248, 249 ( 611 SE2d 45 ) (2005) (the contemporaneous objection rule provides that objections must be made on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the claim of error; objecting on a specific ground waives all other grounds of objection on appeal). 2 Kimbrell v. Effingham Bd. of Tax Assessors, 191 Ga. App. 544, 546 ( 382 SE2d 388 ) (1989). 3 City of McDonough v. Tusk Partners, 268 Ga. 693, 696 (1) ( 492 SE2d 206 ) (1997). 4 Cavin v. Powell, 276 Ga. App. 60 (1) ( 622 SE2d 415 ) (2005).