Opinion ID: 1587985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We have stated:

Text: `An appellant who suffers an adverse ruling on a motion to exclude evidence, made in limine, preserves this adverse ruling for post-judgment and appellate review only if he objects to the introduction of the proffered evidence and assigns specific grounds therefor at the time of the trial, unless he has obtained the express acquiescence of the trial court that subsequent objection to evidence when it is proffered at trial and assignment of grounds therefor are not necessary.' Baldwin County Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Fairhope, 999 So.2d 448, 454 (Ala.2008) (quoting Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. v. James, 646 So.2d 669, 673 (Ala.1994)). [U]nless the trial court's ruling on a motion in limine is absolute or unconditional, the ruling does not preserve the issue for appeal. Perry v. Brakefield, 534 So.2d 602, 606 (Ala.1988). The State argues that Jackson failed to preserve this issue for review because he did not object when Davis testified that Jackson had approached [Jennings] and discussed the capital murder case. State's brief, at 28. We disagree. Davis testified that Jackson approached Jennings at the mall and told Jennings that he did not kill Cotrell. Davis did not mention anything about Jackson's being charged with, tried for, or convicted of Cotrell's murder. Although Jackson initially argued to the trial court that both the conversation between Jackson and Jennings at the mall and Jackson's conviction for capital murder should be excluded, his argument to this Court is that the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence of his conviction. Jackson's brief, at 16. Davis provided no testimony regarding Jackson's conviction for capital murder; therefore, Jackson's failure to object to her testimony does not prevent him from presenting to this Court the issue whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior conviction. The State also argues that Jackson has not preserved this issue for review because he failed to object when the State actually offered ... the certified copy of his capital murder conviction. State's brief, at 28. Thus, according to the State, because Jackson did not renew his objection at trial, this issue was not preserved for review. Id. Again, we disagree. The certified copy of the capital-murder conviction was introduced at the close of Charles Mosley's testimony. Immediately before Mosley's testimony, Jackson stated for the third time his objection to the introduction of evidence related to his capital-murder conviction. Jackson's counsel argued that the prejudicial value [of evidence of the conviction] far outweighs any probative value it may have, and I believe he is being attacked primarily on ... [his] character, in an effort to say that `If he did this one time, now, he has probably done it again.' And I think the law is contrary to that and says that the State cannot do it. The trial court stated that it would allow the evidence to be introduced. Jackson continued to object, arguing that Mosley's testimony has nothing to do with the facts of this case. It has nothing to do with a motive, as far as this case is concerned. The trial court responded: I'm going to allow it in. I made my ruling. Contrary to the State's argument, it is clear that Jackson timely renewed his objections at trial, assigning specific grounds for his objections to the introduction of evidence concerning his capital-murder conviction. Nothing more was required to preserve his arguments for appellate review.