From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cassidy Robel v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Jul 2, 1973
496 S.W.2d 376 (Ark. 1973)

Opinion

No. CR 73-53.

Opinion delivered July 2, 1973

CRIMINAL LAW — POSTCONVICTION RELIEF — FAILURE TO OBJECT TO INSTRUCTIONS. — Notwithstanding alleged errors raised for the first time on appeal will nor be considered, no party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction to a jury unless he objects thereto before or at the time the instruction is given, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds for his objection. [Rule XIII, Uniform Rules for Circuit Chancery Courts adopted December 31, 1971 pursuant to Act No. 170 of 1971.]

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division, William J. Kirby, Judge; affirmed.

Harold L. Hall, Public Defender, by: Robert L. Lowery, for appellants.

Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: James W. Atkins, Asst Atty. Gen., for appellee.


Appellants Steve Cassidy and Harry Jack Robel while inmates of the Pulaski County Penal Farm were charged with attempting to burn a building contrary to Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-504 (Repl. 1964). On October 4, 1972, the jury found them guilty and assessed their punishment at 5 years imprisonment in the State Department of Corrections. For reversal they contend that State's Instruction No. 1 as amended was abstract and that it contained an inherently erroneous statement of the law in that no mention was made of the value of personal property necessary to constitute a felony.

We find no merit in the contentions now raised. The objections now raised were not made in the trial court and we have often held that we will not consider alleged errors raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, since December 31, 1971, Rule XIII of Uniform Rules for Circuit and Chancery Courts, adopted pursuant to Acts 1971 No. 470, specifically provides that: "No party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction to a jury unless he objects there to before or at the time the instruction is given, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds for his objection. . . ." See 251 Ark. 1117.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Cassidy Robel v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Jul 2, 1973
496 S.W.2d 376 (Ark. 1973)
Case details for

Cassidy Robel v. State

Case Details

Full title:Steven A. CASSIDY and Harry Jack ROBEL v. STATE of Arkansas

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Jul 2, 1973

Citations

496 S.W.2d 376 (Ark. 1973)
496 S.W.2d 376

Citing Cases

Ply v. State

Appellant raised the question he now asserts for the first time on appeal, so we will not consider it. One…

Norton v. State

The court revised the instruction to show the property as belonging to the Diamondhead Pro Shop. After the…