Opinion ID: 2630046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Admission of the Certified Driving Record

Text: As for Dukes' argument that the admission of State's Exhibit 5, the certified driving record, also violated his confrontation rights, we note that he timely objected but failed to provide the specific grounds as required by K.S.A. 60-404. After completing voir dire of Deputy Thompson, Dukes' counsel simply stated, Objection to the admission, Your Honor. As previously mentioned, it is the defendant's responsibility to rais[e] his Confrontation Clause objection. Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. at 2541. Additionally, in Richmond we rejected a related argument: that a defendant may object to the introduction of evidence on one ground at trial and then assert another ground on appeal. 289 Kan. at 429-30, 212 P.3d 165. Similarly, we reject the premise that a defendant may merely assert a general objection at trial and then specify a ground on appeal. We also reject the premise that this Court should review, as here, counsel's questions during witness voir dire and then supply defendant the specificyet unspokengrounds for the trial objection on appeal. These practices would undermine the language and the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule. See K.S.A. 60-404; Richmond, 289 Kan. at 429, 212 P.3d 165 (the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether the evidence should be admitted and thereby reduce the chances of reversible error). As a result, Dukes failed to preserve this issue for appeal. Judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Judgment of the district court is affirmed. DAVIS, C.J., not participating. PHILLIP C. VIEUX, District Judge, assigned. [1]