Opinion ID: 1790205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony of Detective Harrell

Text: Appellant next cites error where the trial court overruled defense counsel's objection to certain portions of Detective Harrell's testimony. On direct examination, Detective Harrell was asked whether he had experience in assessing people's reactions and how they react under certain circumstances, and whether Ms. Ross's demeanor was consistent with the story she had given the officers. He replied affirmatively to both questions. Defense counsel objected to these questions based on hearsay and the form of the question. Appellant now argues that the trial court erred in allowing this line of questioning, because it essentially permitted Detective Harrell to vouch for the credibility or truthfulness of Emma Ross. However, this objection was never presented to the trial judge for consideration, and defense counsel failed to object on the grounds that Detective Harrell was attempting to vouch for Ms. Ross's credibility. If a party does not timely inform the trial judge of the alleged error and request the relief to which he considers himself entitled, the issue is not preserved for appellate review. Stringer v. Commonwealth, 956 S.W.2d 883, 888 (Ky.1997). Therefore, as the issue is not preserved, the ruling of the trial court is affirmed.