Opinion ID: 1285087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Ms. Hasty as a Play Therapist

Text: The Appellant also appears to assert that Ms. Hasty's testimony should not have been admitted because her mechanisms for facilitating discussion with the children were based upon the concept of play therapy. The Appellant did not, however, assert a proper objection to such subject matter during trial. Although counsel for the Appellant did object to two questions during Ms. Hasty's testimony which would have elicited an opinion from Ms. Hasty, neither of these objections was founded upon the grounds now asserted on appeal. [7] This Court has consistently held that [o]bjections on non-jurisdictional issues, must be made in the lower court to preserve such issues for appeal. Loar v. Massey, 164 W.Va. 155, 159, 261 S.E.2d 83, 86 (1979). `Where objections were not shown to have been made in the trial court, and the matters concerned were not jurisdictional in character, such objections will not be considered on appeal.' Syllabus Point 1, State Road Commission v. Ferguson, 148 W.Va. 742, 137 S.E.2d 206 (1964). Syl. Pt. 3, O'Neal v. Peake Operating Co., 185 W.Va. 28, 404 S.E.2d 420 (1991). The necessity for precise and specific objections was acknowledged by this Court in syllabus point two of State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W.Va. 208, 470 S.E.2d 162 (1996), as follows: To preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must articulate it with such sufficient distinctiveness to alert a circuit court to the nature of the claimed defect. Rule 103 of the West Virginia Rule of Evidence is also indicative of this principle, providing in pertinent part, as follows: (a) Effect of erroneous ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and (1) Objection.In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context .... In the case sub judice, based upon the Appellant's failure to raise an adequate objection, the issue of whether testimony regarding statements elicited during therapy sessions which included a component of play therapy should have been admitted at trial has not been preserved for appellate review. While the plain error doctrine has been utilized to correct errors of great magnitude even in the absence of an objection, we do not believe that the circumstances of this case warrant such a result. This Court explained the use of the plain error doctrine as follows in syllabus point seven of State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995): To trigger application of the `plain error' doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. In pertinent part of syllabus point four of State v. England, 180 W.Va. 342, 376 S.E.2d 548 (1988), this court stated that the plain error doctrine is to be used sparingly and only in those circumstances where substantial rights are affected, or the truth-finding process is substantially impaired, or a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. We conclude that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony in the Appellant's trial. We consequently affirm the decision of the lower court. Affirmed.