# Smallwood v. State

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · December 9, 1996 · 326 Ark. 813

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759729

## Case

- **Full name:** Xavier SMALLWOOD v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** December 9, 1996
- **Citations:** 326 Ark. 813; 935 S.W.2d 530; 1996 Ark. LEXIS 661
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Roaf, Brown
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759729

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the issue was not preserved because the defense counsel waited until after the witness had answered the question once and the State had asked the question a second time before objecting
- holding that the denial of a motion seeking a particular sentence was sufficient preservation of an issue for appeal

## Opinion text

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result but write separately to express my concern with the holding that appellant’s counsel did not object in a timely manner to the prosecutor’s questions regarding prior involvement in drug sales, per the colloquy set out in the majority opinion. While the case relied upon for this result, Hill v. State, 285 Ark. 77 , 685 S.W.2d 495 (1985), did hold that an objection must be made at the first opportunity, that case involved an untimely objection made after eight questions had been asked on the subject. In this case, appellant’s counsel objected before the second question was answered, and given the realities of trial practice, the application of the rule to these facts is too technical. However, I concur in the result, as Smallwood later admitted on cross-examination, without objection, to membership in a gang involved in selling drugs. The line of questioning objected to, if error, was undoubtedly harmless.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759729. Public record. Not legal advice.