Opinion ID: 2448651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: AMCI 2d 9401-02 Jury Instructions.

Text: Newman's fifth argument is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury during the sentencing phase that he would do one-sixth of the time received. During the sentencing phase of trial, the trial court instructed the jury with regard to the range of possible punishment and Newman's possible parole eligibility. See AMCI2d 9401-02. Newman objected to the bifurcated nature of the proceedings, arguing that informing the jury of possible parole eligibility denied him due process of law and equal protection because it preconceives an idea of what is going to happen. Newman also proffered jury instructions that combined the guilt and sentencing determinations. Following Newman's constitutional objection to the bifurcated proceedings, the trial court did not issue a ruling. Newman proffered his proposed jury instructions, after which the trial court inquired, Anything else? Then, Newman moved for a directed verdict, challenging the sufficiency of the State's proof on the element of delivery. After this motion, the trial court simply responded, Uh-huh, and proceeded to instruct the jury. To preserve arguments for appeal, even constitutional ones, the appellant must obtain a ruling. Danzie v. State, 326 Ark. 34, 930 S.W.2d 310 (1996); Bonds v. State, 310 Ark. 541, 837 S.W.2d 881 (1992); State v. Torres, 309 Ark. 422, 831 S.W.2d 903 (1992). Because Newman failed to obtain a ruling from the trial court on his objection to the bifurcated proceedings, he has not preserved that issue for appeal. Thus, this court must summarily affirm on this point for failure to obtain a ruling below.