Opinion ID: 1959789
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony of Mr. Fitzgerald

Text: At the outset, we agree with the trial court's observation that defendant failed to object to the hearsay testimony of Mr. Fitzgerald. Defendant raised hearsay objections during the testimony of Ms. Briggs and Ms. Lamare, but did not do so when Mr. Fitzgerald testified following these two witnesses. Defendant argues that his continuing objection to all hearsay statements introduced by plaintiff's witnesses regarding Mrs. Peters' reaction to learning of the sexual battery preserved his claim of error regarding Mr. Fitzgerald's testimony. We disagree. In order to preserve a claim of error in the introduction of evidence, the party opposing the introduction must make a timely objection or motion to strike. V.R.E. 103(a)(1). This means that [t]he objection must have been made at the time the evidence was offered or the question was asked. State v. Fisher, 167 Vt. 36, 43, 702 A.2d 41, 45 (1997). Ordinarily it must be made when the grounds become apparent. 1 K.S. Broun, et al., McCormick on Evidence § 52, at 200-01 (J.W. Strong ed., 4th ed.1992). Neither V.R.C.P. 46, nor relevant case law on the necessity of subsequent objections to the same legal concern, can be reasonably construed to allow a continuing objection as open ended as defendant seeks here. An objection must be entered, at the very least, each time a new witness testifies, even if the objection is on the same grounds as a continuing objection to the testimony of a prior witness or witnesses. The purpose of requiring a timely objection is to bring the error to the attention of the trial court so that the court may have an opportunity to rule. State v. Chambers, 144 Vt. 234, 242, 477 A.2d 110, 114 (1984). Where the aggrieved party fails to make a `specific objection, including a clear statement of the matter to which he objects and the grounds of the objection' at trial, the issue is not preserved for consideration on appeal. Deyo v. Kinley, 152 Vt. 196, 200, 565 A.2d 1286, 1289 (1989) (quoting State v. Lettieri, 149 Vt. 340, 342, 543 A.2d 683, 685 (1988)). Defendant did not meet his burden to note his specific objection to Mr. Fitzgerald's testimony. See id.