Opinion ID: 2373337
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: other criminal charges

Text: Womack contends that the trial court erred in allowing testimony concerning a criminal charge other than the one for which he was being tried. This argument is without merit since Womack's counsel raised the issue by electing to recall Womack to the witness stand on redirect, at which time Womack furnished testimony as to the other charge. A bench conference took place during cross-examination of Womack in which the issue of the admissibility of the other charge was addressed by counsel and the court. After a lengthy exchange concerning the admissibility or inadmissibility of facts relating to the Calhoun County case, the court stated: I think they can go into it. Womack's counsel replied, I want to save my exceptions to that ruling. But then based on that ruling, I feel like I must inquire about it. Womack's counsel then elected to place Womack on the stand for a brief redirect examination: Q. Mr. Womack, you are charged with three transactions in this county  one marijuana, two being cocaine. A. (Nods affirmatively). Q. Now that's not the only charges that are against you or is it sir? A. No sir. Thereafter, the State presented testimony of Mark Tokie as a rebuttal witness; however, from our examination of the appendices the testimony has no relationship to the criminal charge other than the one for which Womack was being tried. Notwithstanding the fact that the court in its ruling indicated that it thought the State could go into the matter of the other criminal charge, it was Womack who raised the issue of the charge when he testified on redirect examination. He cannot now be heard to complain of that for which he was responsible. Berry v. State, 278 Ark. 578, 647 S.W.2d 453 (1983); Kaestel v. State, 274 Ark. 550, 626 S.W.2d 940 (1982). See also Aaron v. State, 300 Ark. 13, 775 S.W.2d 894 (1989); Williams v. State, 288 Ark. 444, 705 S.W.2d 888 (1986). Affirmed. HICKMAN, J., concurs.