Opinion ID: 2587723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Use of Brian Smith's Identification

Text: Engelhardt also takes issue with the State's introduction of evidence, over defense counsel's objection, that Engelhardt used Brian Smith's identification during a traffic stop a few days after the murder. He argues the evidence was irrelevant. Defense counsel made only general objections to this evidence at trial; there was no objection based on relevance. '[A] timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence at trial must be made in order to preserve that issue for appeal.' [Citations omitted.] State v. Flynn, 274 Kan. 473, 496, 55 P.3d 324 (2002); see K.S.A. 60-404. A party may not object at trial to the admission of evidence on one ground and then on appeal argue a different objection. State v. Bryant, 272 Kan. 1204, 1208, 38 P.3d 661 (2002). Moreover, even if the evidence of Engelhardt's use of the identification was irrelevant, and an objection was preserved, any erroneous admission was harmless. As stated above, the jury was presented overwhelming evidence of Engelhardt's guilt; the exclusion of the identification evidence would not have changed the result of the trial.