Opinion ID: 2331252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-Examination on Prior Felony Convictions More Than Ten Years Old

Text: Appellant contends that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court permitted the State to cross-examine him regarding prior felony convictions that were more than ten years old. We hold appellant's argument in this regard to be procedurally barred because the trial court did not rule on his objection and he did not insist upon obtaining a ruling. The trial court granted a pretrial motion in limine filed by appellant to prevent his convictions that were more than ten years old from being allowed into evidence. At trial, however, while testifying in his own defense, appellant was asked whether he had ever been in trouble with the law, and he answered in a way that opened up the door to a discussion of his prior convictions that preceded the ten-year rule. The cross-examination was as follows: PROSECUTOR: One thing I did forget to ask you. Right at the first of your direct examination, you were asked [defense counsel] asked you, I believe, you are a convicted felon. APPELLANT: That's correct. PROSECUTOR: Okay. And what felonies have you been convicted of? APPELLANT: UhI don't know if I can-do you have a copy of `em? You can PROSECUTOR: You can't remember `em? APPELLANT: II sold some Benzedrex inhaler stuff in `86over-the-counter medicine. UhI sold some of that. UhI went to prison for it. It's a noncontrolled substance. Uh PROSECUTOR: Other felonies APPELLANT: I've had a couple forgery charges in the `70s. At this point, defense counsel objected because appellant had begun to testify about convictions outside the ten-year rule and in violation of the ruling on the motion in limine. The trial court did not rule on the objection and cross-examination continued: PROSECUTOR: What about aggravated robbery? APPELLANT: Yes, Iin 1980, I robbed a store and got seven years and went to prison for it. PROSECUTOR: Um-hum. Does that pretty well coverany other ones you can think of? Forgery. Aggravated robbery. Controlled substance. Anything else? APPELLANT: No controlled substance. It was over-the-counter medication. I've made some mistakes. Although we have held that the denial of a pretrial motion in limine preserves an issue for appeal, and no further objection is required at trial, see, e.g., Hale v. State, 343 Ark. 62, 80, 31 S.W.3d 850, 861, cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1039, 121 S.Ct. 2001, 149 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2001), in the instant case, appellant's motion in limine was granted. We have held that it is the movant's burden to obtain a ruling, and unresolved questions and objections are waived and may not be relied upon on appeal. See State v. Montague, 341 Ark. 144, 14 S.W.3d 867 (2000). We, therefore, must then hold that it was appellant's burden to obtain a ruling on his motion when it appeared that the trial court's previous ruling was being violated; and, because the trial court failed to rule on appellant's objection, appellant's argument is, therefore, procedurally barred. Moreover, even if appellant's argument had, in fact, been preserved for appeal, appellant himself invited the error of discussing his prior convictions that preceded the ten-year rule by testifying vaguely that he had been in trouble with the law and then by responding to the prosecuting attorney's questions by referring to convictions that were older than ten years. Appellant was aware of the trial court's ruling limiting the admissibility of his previous convictions. He, therefore, should have limited his responses to those convictions that had been ruled admissible. We have held that, under the doctrine of invited error, one who is responsible for error cannot be heard to complain of that for which he was responsible. McGhee v. State, 330 Ark. 38, 41, 954 S.W.2d 206, 208 (1997). Under this doctrine, appellant cannot now claim error.