Coulter v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Coulter v. State

597 S.W.2d 814, 269 Ark. 537, 1980 Ark. LEXIS 1559

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJuly 7, 1980

DocketCR 80-55

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 597 S.W.2d 814 (Coulter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coulter v. State, 597 S.W.2d 814, 269 Ark. 537, 1980 Ark. LEXIS 1559 (Ark. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Richard L. Mays, Justice.

Appellant, Henry C. Coulter, was sentenced to 32 years imprisonment as a habitual criminal, after a jury found him guilty of burglary and theft of property. Challenging only the theft of property conviction on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to submit the proper verdict forms to the jury. We affirm without reaching the merits of his argument since appellant failed to raise the issue in the trial court.

We have consistently held that objections as to verdict forms and jury instructions must be asserted in the trial court before they will be considered on appeal. See, e.g. Spears v. State, 264 Ark. 83, 568 S.W. 2d 492 (1978); Rowland v. State, 263 Ark. 77, 562 S.W. 2d 590 (1978); Goodwin v. State, 263 Ark. 856, 568 S.W. 2d 3 (1978), and Fauna v. State, 265 Ark. 934, 582 S.W. 2d 18 (1979). We disregard a failure to object in the trial court only when the error is so great that it could not have been cured by the trial judge and only then to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice. Smith v. State, 268 Ark. 282, 595 S.W. 2d 671 (March 24, 1980). We perceive nothing that we have said in the past to have relaxed the application of this principle. Obviously, if appellant had objected to the verdict forms or the instructions below, the trial judge could have corrected any error.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Richard L. Mays, Justice.

Appellant, Henry C. Coulter, was sentenced to 32 years imprisonment as a habitual criminal, after a jury found him guilty of burglary and theft of property. Challenging only the theft of property conviction on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to submit the proper verdict forms to the jury. We affirm without reaching the merits of his argument since appellant failed to raise the issue in the trial court.

We have consistently held that objections as to verdict forms and jury instructions must be asserted in the trial court before they will be considered on appeal. See, e.g. Spears v. State, 264 Ark. 83, 568 S.W. 2d 492 (1978); Rowland v. State, 263 Ark. 77, 562 S.W. 2d 590 (1978); Goodwin v. State, 263 Ark. 856, 568 S.W. 2d 3 (1978), and Fauna v. State, 265 Ark. 934, 582 S.W. 2d 18 (1979). We disregard a failure to object in the trial court only when the error is so great that it could not have been cured by the trial judge and only then to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice. Smith v. State, 268 Ark. 282, 595 S.W. 2d 671 (March 24, 1980). We perceive nothing that we have said in the past to have relaxed the application of this principle. Obviously, if appellant had objected to the verdict forms or the instructions below, the trial judge could have corrected any error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

597 S.W.2d 814, 269 Ark. 537, 1980 Ark. LEXIS 1559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coulter-v-state-ark-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack