Opinion ID: 2638972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hearsay Challenge

Text: ¶ 10 Smith first asserts that exhibit two, the statement from the DOL custodian of records, was improperly admitted into evidence because it contained hearsay not within the scope of any exception. We would normally address this rule-based argument first before addressing the constitutional questions raised by Smith. See State v. Hall, 95 Wash.2d 536, 539, 627 P.2d 101 (1981). However, we do not reach the merits of Smith's hearsay argument because the issue was not properly preserved at trial. [4] See RAP 2.5(a). ¶ 11 When the State moved to admit exhibit two into evidence, Smith's counsel merely objected to foundation. This is insufficient to preserve a hearsay objection for appeal. State v. Guloy, 104 Wash.2d 412, 422, 705 P.2d 1182 (1985); State v. Avendano-Lopez, 79 Wash.App. 706, 710, 904 P.2d 324 (1995); City of Seattle v. Carnell, 79 Wash.App. 400, 403, 902 P.2d 186 (1995). ¶ 12 As the State argued here, the judge reasonably reviewed the exhibit to determine whether it had the appropriate seal from the State of Washington to establish its authenticity under ER 902. Suppl. Br. of Resp't at 11 n. 8. Having no objection requiring him to rule on hearsay, the judge allowed the exhibit into evidence.