Opinion ID: 1995858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: The Challenged Rebuttal Testimony

Text: The defendant further challenges the admission of the rebuttal testimony of Officer Christopher Peloso (concerning his early-morning conversations with Lisa and Victoria several hours after the alleged assault). The defendant contends that such testimony was impermissiblesince, in defendant's view, it constituted bolstering or vouching. [8] When one witness offers an opinion concerning the truthfulness of the testimony of another witness, such testimony is considered impermissible. [9] It should be remembered, however, that this Court has consistently held that, pursuant to our `raise-or-waive' rule, we do not consider issues at the appellate level which have not been properly presented to the trial court. State v. Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d 12, 30 (R.I.2009); see State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822, 828-29 (R.I.2008) (It is well settled that a litigant cannot raise an objection or advance a new theory on appeal if it was not raised before the trial court.); see also Palmer, 962 A.2d at 766; State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228, 236 (R.I.2008); State v. Forand, 958 A.2d 134, 141 (R.I.2008). Under the raise-or-waive rule, in order to preserve an objection for appellate review, an evidentiary objection must be sufficiently focused so as to call the trial justice's attention to the basis for said objection   . State v. Warren, 624 A.2d 841, 842 (R.I.1993); see also Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d at 30; State v. Gautier, 950 A.2d 400, 407 (R.I.2008). In the instant case, during Officer Peloso's direct testimony as a rebuttal witness, defense counsel made one general objection and two motions to strike, none of which made reference to bolstering or vouching. Defense counsel then cross-examined Officer Peloso. On redirect, defense counsel made an additional motion to strike Officer Peloso's answer as nonresponsive. However, defense counsel did not articulate with reasonable specificity [10] the grounds for either his objection or his motions to strike Officer Peloso's direct rebuttal testimony, and the record reflects no mention of impermissible bolstering or vouching at trial. It is thus our opinion that an objection to that testimony as constituting bolstering or vouching was not preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, pursuant to our well-established raise-or-waive rule, defendant's argument relative to Officer Peloso's rebuttal testimony will not be considered by us. See Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d at 30; see also Bido, 941 A.2d at 828-29. [11]