Court Opinion

ID: 9676111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:15:16.505251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:44.112801
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting. Grinning relies on Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744, 841 S.W.2d 593 (1992) and Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713, 841 S.W.2d 589 (1992) in arguing that the contemporaneous objection rule is inapplicable. I disagree. Both Calnan and Winkle involve cases in which no jury was provided. The court in Calnan relied in part on an exception to the contemporaneous objection rule, which allows for an exception when a trial court should intervene on its own motion to correct a serious error. The serious error was the total absence of a jury; that simply is not the issue in the case before us here. In both Winkle and Calnan an issue addressed was whether there had been a waiver of the right to a jury trial. The issue here simply does not go so far. We should affirm. Jesson, C.J., and Brown, J., join this dissent.