Opinion ID: 2518345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Footprints Evidence

Text: The defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of footprints without proper foundation when the shoes were never admitted into evidence. The admission of evidence is within the district court's discretion. Discretion is abused when the district court's action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. State v. Pennington, 276 Kan. 841, 844, 80 P.3d 44 (2003). Detective Jeff Ward took photographs of footprints found at the scene amongst lithium battery strips and packaging materials. A ruler next to the footprints demonstrated their size. Prior to trial, the defense filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude Ward's testimony that the footprints found at the crime scene matched the defendant's shoes. The defense argued that scientific verification or expert testimony was necessary to draw that correlation and the defendant's shoes were a common brand. The district court denied the motion after a hearing. At trial, Ward relayed his observations that the size and tread of the shoes the defendant was wearing when questioned later that day matched one of the footprints, and the tread of the sandals worn by a codefendant matched the other footprint. Ward explained that the defendant's shoes had a distinctive pattern that looked like a burro's head. The defense did not object to this testimony; however, it did object to the admission of the photographs for the reasons it had discussed at the pretrial hearing. Although Ward and Miller identified the shoes as belonging to the defendant, the district court refused to admit the defendant's shoes into evidence at trial because the State failed to establish a proper chain of custodythe jailer who physically removed the shoes from the defendant's feet did not testify at trial. The Court of Appeals found that the defense had failed to preserve this evidentiary issue for review by not objecting to Ward's testimony regarding the footprints. Nevertheless, it found that Ward's testimony regarding the distinctive tread pattern was admissible under State v. Jackson, 220 Kan. 675, 678, 556 P.2d 885 (1976). Jackson provides that expert testimony is not required for footprint testimony and a lay witness is generally allowed to give such testimony provided he bases his conclusion on measurements or peculiarities of the tracks. 220 Kan. at 678. On petition for review, the defendant argues that Ward's testimony and photographs were highly prejudicial and were not sufficiently based on the measurements or peculiarities of the tracks to be admissible under Jackson. He also argues that Ward's conclusion was not based on proper foundation, reasoning that Ward needed to do more than measure the footprint and make a quick visual observation of the shoes, such as measuring the actual shoes, making a plaster cast of the footprints, determining how common the shoes were, or testing to see if the shoes matched the footprints at the scene. The defendant's argument ignores the two critical facts that support the Court of Appeals' decision. First, the defense did not object to Ward's testimony comparing the footprints to the defendant's shoesit only objected to the admission of the photographs. A party must make a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence at trial in order to preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Kunellis, 276 Kan. 461, 477, 78 P.3d 776 (2003). As such, the defendant has not properly preserved this issue for appeal. Second, even if the court found the issue was preserved based on the objection to the photographs, the defendant's argument is without merit. Although he acknowledges that lay witnesses may provide footprint testimony based on measurements or peculiarities of the tracks, he overlooks the fact that the detective did in fact testify that he based his decision on the distinctive treads which looked like a burro's head. The Court of Appeals properly concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence because it satisfied the Jackson test. This analysis also renders the defendant's argument regarding cumulative error moot. The defendant's convictions of possession of pseudoephedrine or ephedrine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of meth are affirmed, his sentence on the possession of pseudoephedrine or ephedrine conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing. The defendant's conviction for manufacture or attempt to manufacture meth is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. GERNON and BEIER, JJ., not participating. BRAZIL, S.J., assigned. [1]