Opinion ID: 1414169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: presentation of proper objection

Text: The State contends that Wareham is not entitled to raise the issue of the admissibility of his daughters' testimony because he did not properly preserve his objection to the admission of that evidence. We disagree. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the testimony of his two older daughters. That motion was heard on April 16, 1986, by Judge Ronald Hyde. The record contains no indication that Judge Hyde ruled on defendant's motion, but he did request the filing of memoranda from both counsel. On April 29, 1986, the trial started, and Judge John Wahlquist presided. The trial transcript starts by noting that counsel for each side and the judge conducted an off-the-record conference, but there is no indication of the subject matter of that conference. Although the record does not indicate that Judge Wahlquist ever denied defendant's pretrial motion, both sides agree that defendant's motion was denied, even though it is not clear which judge did so. The procedure in this case raises the question of whether the requirements of State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79 (Utah 1983), were fulfilled. Lesley requires a party to object at trial to the introduction of evidence even though a pretrial motion to suppress had been made and denied if the pretrial judge and the trial judge were different. See State v. Johnson, 748 P.2d 1069, 1071-72 (Utah 1987). Lesley is based on the rationale that a trial judge should be afforded an opportunity to avoid error in the trial which may have been created by an improper ruling on a pretrial motion... . 672 P.2d at 82. The transcript of the trial of this case indicates that at the start of trial proceedings, defense counsel lodged a continuing objection to evidence of any acts of sexual impropriety between Wareham and either of his older daughters. This objection apprised the trial judge of the problems which defendant perceived in the testimony of the older daughters. The requirements of Lesley were therefore fulfilled, preserving defendant's objection for appeal.