A. Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court shall be unnecessary; but for all purposes for which an exception has heretofore been necessary, it shall be sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take or his objections to the action of the court and his grounds therefor; and, if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection shall not thereafter prejudice him on motion for a new trial or on appeal. No party, after having made an objection or motion known to the court, shall be required to (i) make such objection or motion again in order to preserve his right to appeal, challenge, or move for reconsideration of, a ruling, order, or action of the court or (ii) move for reconsideration in order to preserve his right to appeal a ruling, order, or action of the court, even if such ruling, order, or action is without prejudice to a motion to reconsider. No party shall be deemed to have agreed to, or acquiesced in, any written order of a trial court so as to forfeit his right to contest such order on appeal except by express written agreement in his endorsement of the order. Arguments made at trial via written pleading, memorandum, recital of objections in a final order, oral argument reduced to transcript, or agreed written statements of facts shall, unless expressly withdrawn or waived, be deemed preserved therein for assertion on appeal.
B. The failure to make a motion for a new trial in any case in which an appeal, writ of error, or supersedeas lies to or from a higher court shall not be deemed a waiver of any objection made during the trial if such objection be properly made a part of the record.
Code 1950, §§ 8-225, 8-225.1; 1970, c. 558; 1977, c. 617; 1992, c. 564; 2024, c. 57.
Notes of Decisions
Murillo-Rodriguez v. Com., 688 S.E.2d 199 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 62× “[1] Murillo-Rodriguez contends that Code § 8.01-384(A), as amended in 1992, and this Court's decision in King v.”
Riner v. Com., 601 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2004).
· cites it 14× “Indeed, Code § 8.01-384, and cases construing it, not only expressly make such objection "unnecessary," but also indicate that the objection was sufficient to preserve Riner's right to contest the trial court's admission of the "double hearsay" testimony on appeal.”
Amos v. Commonwealth, 740 S.E.2d 43 (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 46× “See Code § 8.01-384 (“if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection shall not thereafter prejudice him .”
Campbell v. Commonwealth, 405 S.E.2d 1 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 20× “" Code § 8.01-384. 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.”
Jason N. Creamer v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 767 S.E.2d 226 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 10× “Rule 2:102 expressly provides that the Rules of Evidence were “adopted to implement established principles under the common law and not to change any established case law rendered prior to the adoption of the Rules.” To the extent Rule 2:103(a) might imply that…”
McQuinn v. Commonwealth, 451 S.E.2d 704 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 26× “01-384. The General Assembly described its 1992 amendment as “declaratory of existing law.”
Scialdone v. Com., 689 S.E.2d 716 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 10× “01-384, and this Court's precedents require only that a party state his/her objections and the grounds therefor and that their motions to stay and accompanying memoranda satisfied those requirements. *724 The Court of Appeals erred, the defendants maintain, in holding that they…”
Lee v. Lee, 404 S.E.2d 736 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 7× “[are] unnecessary; but for all purposes for *738 which an exception has heretofore been necessary, it shall be sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court take or his…”
King v. Commonwealth, 570 S.E.2d 863 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 12× “DISCUSSION King contends that under Code § 8.01-384(A) his objection to the trial court’s refusal to strike the evidence was sufficient to preserve for appeal the issue whether the evidence was insufficient to prove a violation of Code § 18.”
Brown v. Com., 688 S.E.2d 185 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 8× “Moreover, in reference to Rule 5A:18's Supreme Court Rule counterpart, Rule 5:25, this Court recently stated that Code § 8.01-384 controls our interpretation of the rule.”
Courembis v. Courembis, 595 S.E.2d 505 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “will be considered as a basis for reversal unless the objection was stated together with the grounds therefor at the time of the ruling, except for good cause shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.”
Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 443 S.E.2d 419 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 12× “Before the investigator testified, the defendant's counsel objected to the proposed testimony because she anticipated that the expert would testify concerning the significance of the cocaine found and that this testimony would "pre-empt the jury's determination of fact .”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-384(A) — 130 cases
Murillo-Rodriguez v. Com., 688 S.E.2d 199 (Va. 2010).
“[1] Murillo-Rodriguez contends that Code § 8.01-384(A), as amended in 1992, and this Court's decision in King v.”
Amos v. Commonwealth, 740 S.E.2d 43 (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
“See Code § 8.01-384 (“if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection shall not thereafter prejudice him .”
Riner v. Com., 601 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2004).
“Indeed, Code § 8.01-384, and cases construing it, not only expressly make such objection "unnecessary," but also indicate that the objection was sufficient to preserve Riner's right to contest the trial court's admission of the "double hearsay" testimony on appeal.”
Jason N. Creamer v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 767 S.E.2d 226 (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“Rule 2:102 expressly provides that the Rules of Evidence were “adopted to implement established principles under the common law and not to change any established case law rendered prior to the adoption of the Rules.” To the extent Rule 2:103(a) might imply that…”
King v. Commonwealth, 570 S.E.2d 863 (Va. 2002).
“DISCUSSION King contends that under Code § 8.01-384(A) his objection to the trial court’s refusal to strike the evidence was sufficient to preserve for appeal the issue whether the evidence was insufficient to prove a violation of Code § 18.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-384(B) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.