Opinion ID: 2371862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Preserve Issue for Appeal

Text: Importantly, Calderon-Aparicio did not move to suppress evidence of this show-up identification before trial or object to introduction of this evidence at trial. As a general rule, defendants must object to an out-of-court identification during trial to preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811, 813, 69 P.3d 571 (2003); State v. Edwards, 264 Kan. 177, 188-89, 955 P.2d 1276 (1998). This is consistent with the rule under K.S.A. 60-404 that a party must lodge a timely and specific objection to the admission or exclusion of evidence in order to preserve the evidentiary question for review. State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 348, 204 P.3d 585 (2009). The purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule is to avoid the use of tainted evidence and thereby avoid possible reversal and a new trial. 288 Kan. at 342, 204 P.3d 585. As our Supreme Court recently stated in State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 429, 212 P.3d 165 (2009), the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether the evidence should be admitted and therefore reduce the chances of reversible error. There are, however, several exceptions to the general rule that a new legal theory may not be asserted for the first time on appeal, including the following: (1) the newly asserted theory involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the theory is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the judgment of the trial court may be upheld on appeal despite its reliance on the wrong ground or assignment of wrong reason for its decision. State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488, 231 P.3d 558 (2010). Calderon-Aparicio points out that our Supreme Court in Hunt, 275 Kan. at 813, 69 P.3d 571, applied the second exception (consideration of the theory is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent denial of fundamental rights) to address the issue of whether the eyewitness identification was unnecessarily suggestive when the defendant failed to object to the out-of-court identification at trial. Moreover, Calderon-Aparicio argues that because the instant issue is not merely an evidentiary issue but also involves his due process rights, this court should apply the exceptions to address his argument. Nevertheless, in more recent years, our Supreme Court in State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 348-49, 204 P.3d 585 (2009), held that evidentiary claims must be preserved by a contemporaneous objection at trial in order for those claims to be reviewed on appeal: [T]he legislature's intent in enacting K.S.A. 60-404 is clear: a party must lodge a timely and specific objection to the admission or exclusion of evidence in order to preserve the evidentiary question for review. We stress today the importance of this legislative mandate. K.S.A. 60-404 dictates that evidentiary errors shall not be reviewed on appeal unless a party has lodged a timely and specific objection to the alleged error at trial. Although our past decisions may have relaxed the objection requirement in the evidentiary context, this practice not only has led to confusion as to the standards that should be applied on appeal, but also has de-emphasized the role of counsel at trial and has impaired the gate-keeping function of district courts in this state. See Baker [ v. State ], 204 Kan. [607] at 611, 464 P.2d 212 [(1970) ]. More importantly, this practice of reviewing evidentiary questions when no objection has been lodged runs contrary to the legislature's clearly stated intent in K.S.A. 60-404. ... From today forward, in accordance with the plain language of K.S.A. 60-404, evidentiary claims-including questions posed by a prosecutor and responses to those questions during trialmust be preserved by way of a contemporaneous objection for those claims to be reviewed on appeal. Since King, our Supreme Court has consistently been refusing to review an evidentiary issue without a timely and specific objection even if the issue involves a fundamental right. State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. at 488, 231 P.3d 558; see State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 429-30, 212 P.3d 165 (2009) (where our Supreme Court expressed concern that the contemporaneous objection rule case-law exceptions would soon swallow the general statutory rule); State v. Hollingsworth, 289 Kan. 1250, 1256-57, 221 P.3d 1122 (2009). Based on our Supreme Court's recent holdings in King and Dukes, we determine that Calderon-Aparicio, by failing to object to introduction of the eyewitness identification into evidence at trial, has failed to preserve this issue for appeal.