Opinion ID: 884934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State's questions to Berosik about the penalties he faced for a DUI.

Text: ¶ 12 During its cross-examination of Berosik at trial, the State asked Berosik why he identified himself to Officer Lavin as Kenneth. Berosik testified that he wanted to avoid getting a ticket or being arrested for not having a license. However, Berosik further testified that he was not worried about getting a DUI. The State asked Berosik several times whether he was worried about the penalties he would face if convicted of DUI. For example, the State asked, You knew we were talking about years? Berosik objected that the question was asked and answered. ¶ 13 Berosik argues that the State improperly signaled the jury that he is a multiple D.U.I. offender, violating the spirit of Rule 404(b), M.R.Evid. Berosik appears to argue that because the State alluded to the possibility that Berosik faced years in jail and on probation, some members of the jury would have inferred that this was not Berosik's first DUI arrest because of their knowledge of the escalating consequences for D.U.I.[s]. ¶ 14 The State responds that in asking Berosik about the substantial penalties for a DUI, it properly inquired into Berosik's motives for lying about his identity to the highway patrol officer and Berosik's consciousness of his guilt. The State argues further that Berosik was not prejudiced because on direct examination he testified that he had been in jail for almost eight months before his trial, opening the door to the admission of the consciousness of guilt evidence. The State also argues that Berosik failed to object contemporaneously, thus waiving his objection. ¶ 15 We conclude that Berosik has failed to preserve this issue for our review. Berosik objected that the State's question was asked and answered. However, Berosik did not object on any of the grounds that he now claims as error on appeal. See Unified Industries, Inc. v. Easley, 1998 MT 145, ¶ 15, 289 Mont. 255, ¶ 15, 961 P.2d 100, ¶ 15 (concluding [t]he general rule in Montana is that this Court will not address either an issue raised for the first time on appeal or a party's change in legal theory) (citation omitted).