Opinion ID: 1860134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The admissibility of Gilbert's arrest record

Text: Ten Broeck also asserts error in the introduction of evidence of Gilbert's fourteen (14) misdemeanor arrests, none of which resulted in conviction. [19] Prior to trial, it filed a motion in limine to preclude the introduction of these arrests on grounds that such evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The trial court overruled the motion and permitted their introduction. In support of the admissibility at trial, plaintiffs expert, Arthur Shorr, testified that arrests that did not result in conviction should have been reviewed by Ten Broeck's human resources department and should have been documented in making its decision to hire or retain him. Shorr conceded, nonetheless, that arrest records that do not result in a conviction, cannot be used to disqualify an applicant. Appellant now asserts error, in this regard, for reasons that employers are barred from relying upon arrest records in making employment decisions when those arrests records do not lead to convictions, as it is widely acknowledged that the use of such records adversely impact African-Americans. Green v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 523 F.2d 1290 (8th Cir.1975); Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972); Tye v. Cincinnati, 794 F.Supp. 824 (S.D.Ohio 1992). Gilbert is African-American. Although the above argument was mentioned in Ten Broeck's Court of Appeal's brief, it was not addressed by the Court of Appeals. More importantly, this precise argument was never made in the trial court. An appellate court is without authority to review issues not raised in or decided by the trial court. Regional Jail Authority v. Tackett, 770 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Ky.1989); Matthews v. Ward, 350 S.W.2d 500 (Ky.1961); see also Lanham v. Commonwealth, 171 S.W.3d 14, 21 (Ky.2005) (A motion in limine will be treated by an appellate court as not raising any matter for review not strictly within the scope of the motion.). Neither will the objections made in the motion in limine, that the evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, be treated as supporting this new argument. This issue being unpreserved and not having been presented to the trial court in the first instance, we will not address it.