Opinion ID: 2329136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Statement Defendant Made to Reserve Officer Waleryszak

Text: Finally, defendant contends that a statement that he made to Reserve Officer Waleryszak was erroneously kept from the jury. Specifically, he maintains that the trial justice erred in preventing him from soliciting testimony from Reserve Officer Waleryszak about a statement that he (defendant) made to the officer outside Ms. Brown's apartment building on the evening of August 26. [24] On direct examination, defense counsel asked Reserve Officer Waleryszak whether defendant had mentioned to [the officer] that he was just trying to keep [Mary Brown] from drinking   ? The prosecutor objected to this question, and the objection was sustained. Shortly thereafter, defense counsel asked Reserve Officer Waleryszak whether defendant had mention[ed] anything to [the officer] about [Mary Brown's] drinking? The prosecutor again objected, and the objection was again sustained. The trial justice then conducted a sidebar conference about the admissibility of this line of questioning. During the sidebar conference, defense counsel asserted that defendant's statement to Reserve Officer Waleryszak was admissible to explain his own actions. The prosecutor disagreed, arguing that the statement constituted hearsay and that [t]he defendant cannot introduce any self-serving statement through police officers   . [25] After hearing these arguments, the trial justice ruled as follows: If you want [defendant] to say that put him on the stand. You can't get a statement through a self-serving statement. The defendant now asserts that the statement that he made to Reserve Officer Waleryszak was admissible pursuant to Rule 803(2) and Rule 803(3). [26] The defendant did not, however, cite these rules as a basis for his argument in favor of admissibility during his criminal trial. As a result, he has not preserved this issue for appellate review. See, e.g., Union Station Associates v. Rossi, 862 A.2d 185, 192 (R.I.2004) ([A]ssignments of error must be set forth with sufficient particularity to call the trial justice's attention to the basis of the objection.); State v. Grant, 840 A.2d 541, 546 (R.I.2004) (It is not the practice of this Court to review issues that are raised for the first time on appeal. According to our well settled `raise or waive rule,' a litigant must make a timely and appropriate objection during the lower court proceedings before this Court will indulge the issue on appeal.); see State v. Saluter, 715 A.2d 1250, 1258 (R.I.1998) (It is axiomatic that `this [C]ourt will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal that was not properly presented before the trial court.') (quoting State v. Gatone, 698 A.2d 230, 242 (R.I.1997)); State v. Donato, 592 A.2d 140, 141 (R.I.1991) (As established by this court, an issue that has not been raised and articulated previously at trial is not properly preserved for appellate review.); see also United States v. Pugliese, 712 F.2d 1574, 1580 (2d Cir.1983) (Unless the basis for proposed admission is obvious, it is the burden of counsel who seeks admission to alert the court to the legal basis for his proffer.). [27]