Rule 46.Exceptions Unnecessary.
Current through February 2024 · Last verified September 12, 2026
Full Text of Rule 46
Amendment History
Rhode Island does not publish a per-rule amendment history inside the compiled rules text reproduced here. The text above is verified current through the source’s own February 2024 printing; for the underlying adopting orders and any later amendments, see the Rhode Island Judiciary’s compiled rules page.
Plain-English Summary
The old ritual is gone. Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary, so a party who wants to preserve a point no longer has to note one. For all the purposes an exception once served, it is enough that the party, at the time the ruling or order is made or sought, makes known to the court the action the party wants taken, or the objection to what the court is doing, along with the grounds if the court asks for them.
Timing is the whole rule. The statement has to come when the ruling is made or sought, not afterward. The one relief from that is built in: if a party had no opportunity to object at the time, the absence of an objection does not prejudice that party later.
The last sentence saves a trial from becoming a chorus of repeated objections. With the court's consent, a party may object to an entire line of testimony, to the entire testimony of a witness, or to testimony on a single subject matter. If that objection is overruled, the party need not repeat it, because each part of the testimony introduced afterward is treated as objected to and the objection as overruled.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to say exception after the judge rules against me?
No. The rule states that formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary. What replaces the exception is making your position known to the court at the time.
What do I have to do to preserve an objection for later?
The rule asks you to make known to the court, at the time the ruling or order is made or sought, the action you want it to take or your objection to the action it is taking. That statement does the work the formal exception used to do.
Do I have to object to each question in a line of testimony?
Not if the court consents to a broader objection. With the court's consent a party may object to an entire line of testimony, to a witness's entire testimony, or to testimony on a single subject matter, and if the objection is overruled the testimony that follows is deemed objected to and the objection overruled.
What if I never had a chance to object?
The rule protects you. Where a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection does not thereafter prejudice that party.
Do I have to explain why I am objecting?
Only if the court asks. The rule calls for the party to make known the action it wants the court to take, or its objection to what the court is doing, and to state the grounds if requested. So an objection stands on its own until the court asks for the reason behind it.