Opinion ID: 1969691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: Did the trial court err by allowing State to use statements made by Jones to professional counselors during the transfer proceedings for impeachment at his trial in adult court? During the transfer proceedings, Jones was evaluated by many psychologists and counselors. In these evaluations, Jones stated that he had used marijuana on a daily basis in the past and had experimented with cocaine, crank, crack, mushrooms, acid, and other street drugs. He also related that he has blackout experiences when he drinks alcohol. These evaluations revealed Jones had spent a considerable amount of time on the streets in California. Jones filed a motion in limine to prohibit the State from using any material contained in the evaluations for adult court proceedings pursuant to SDCL 26-7A-106. [5] The trial court denied this motion and stated that it would allow the State to use this information for impeachment purposes if Jones took the stand. Jones now contends he was improperly prejudiced because the State impeached Jones with statements he made to the professional counselors during the transfer proceedings. During State's cross-examination, Jones was asked about his prior drug use and the frequency of his blackouts. State also asked Jones: Would it be a fair statement that in California you lived on the streets? Jones answered, No, it wouldn't. At no time during this questioning did State refer to the evaluations of Jones. State never used the evaluations to call Jones' veracity into question by exposing prior inconsistent statements. State simply asked questions about items which were included in the evaluations. Nevertheless, the record indicates Jones did not object to questioning on grounds that the cross-examination violated SDCL 26-7A-106. This court has repeatedly held that reversible error cannot be predicated upon the denial of a motion in limine and that failure to specifically object to the evidence during trial forecloses complaint on the issue on appeal. State v. Gallipo, 460 N.W.2d 739, 743 (S.D.1990) (citing State v. Novaock, 414 N.W.2d 299 (S.D.1987); State v. Olson, 408 N.W.2d 748 (S.D.1987)). Prior to claiming error on appeal, the trial court should have the opportunity to rule on the matter. State v. Handy, 450 N.W.2d 434 (S.D.1990). Thus, since the trial court was never asked to rule on the applicability of SDCL 26-7A-106 during the cross-examination, this issue is not properly before this court and has been waived.