Opinion ID: 1201670
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: past crimes

Text: The next issue concerns whether the trial court improperly permitted evidence of the Appellant's prior criminal history to be introduced in violation of West Virginia Rules of Evidence 609(a)(1) [12] and 404(b). [13] The alleged error arises out of the following exchange during the State's cross-examination of the Appellant's expert, Dr. Whelan, during a videotaped deposition: BY MS. GARTON [the prosecutor]: Q: [A]fter going through his [the Appellant's] details as to his past history and problems, she [psychologist Sandra Grimm] indicated that on several occasions in the past when he had been confronted with these offenses that he would state he did not remember what had happened, and also used alcohol and drugs as an excuse. MR. ASH [the Appellant's attorney]: Objection. Move to strike. BY MS. GARTON: Q: Okay. Would that be consistent with what he told you? A: Well, first of all, I haven't read her reports. Q: I understand. A: And I don't know if I can answer that or not. Q: No. I'm asking if that's consistent with what he told you as to this event involving the death of Adrianna Vaught? A: Again, I really don't quite understand the your comments. And I don't see them as questions, more like comments. If he had a blackout and alleged a blackout to her, then it would be similar to what I believe he told me. Q: If there were a history of problems, Doctor, and a history of being confronted with these problems, with behavioral problems with criminal activity and the excuse was always, It was an alcoholic blackout, would that not indicate that that's exactly what it was, was an excuse MR. ASH: Same objection. BY MS. GARTON: Q:  for defense? MR. ASH: Same objection THE WITNESS: I couldn't answer that without MR. ASH:with motion to strike. Now, you may answer. THE WITNESS: I can't answer that without reviewing the records. Prior to trial, the Appellant filed a motion objecting to the above-mentioned questions and responses thereto, stating that the State made pointed reference to prior criminal offenses of [the] defendant which was a naked attempt to circumvent the rule against impeachment of a criminal defendant by prior conviction (Rule of Evidence 609). [14] The Appellant never cited West Virginia Rule of Evidence 404(b) as a supporting ground for this objection. The trial court denied the Appellant's motion, stating that: I believe that the cross-examination by the State was somewhat reserved and controlled. The only reference was to criminal activity. There was no specific reference to any particular crime. I mean, criminal activity could be forged checks. I don't particularly know Mr. DeGraw's record, and I don't think it's necessary at this time. But there wasn't an emphasis that I believe that would override the probative value of that and the necessity of the State to challenge Dr. Whelan's testimony and diagnosis in the matter. I think it's necessary to do that to attempt to explain or counter the defense from the State's standpoint. The trial court also offered to give a cautionary instruction to the jury with regard to its ruling; however, the Appellant's counsel stated that we would not request a cautionary instruction, however, as a matter of tactic. The trial court acceded to the Appellant's counsel's request. The Appellant argues that the trial court improperly allowed the State to interject the Appellant's bad character in evidence through a reference to the Appellant's prior criminal history during the cross-examination of his psychiatric expert. In contrast, the State maintains that the Appellant's objection under West Virginia Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) was properly overruled since the evidence was not offered to impeach the Appellant's credibility. The State further contends that the Appellant is precluded from relying on West Virginia Rule of Evidence 404(b) as a grounds for relief under this appeal because he failed to argue the applicability of Rule 404(b) before the trial court. We agree with the State's contention that the Appellant's claim of error under Rule 404(b) is precluded from appellate review based on his failure to state this authority as ground for his objection before the trial court. [15] West Virginia Rule of Evidence 103(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that [e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and... [i]n 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.... Id. (emphasis added). In interpreting the significance of Rule 103(a)(1), Justice Cleckley in his Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers states: the objecting party should not benefit from an insufficient objection if the grounds asserted in a valid objection could have been obviated had the objecting party alerted the offering party to the true nature of the objection. 1 Franklin D. Cleckley, Handbook on Evidence for West Virginia Lawyers § 1-7(C)(2) at 78 (3rd ed. 1994); see Leftwich v. Inter-Ocean Casualty Co., 123 W.Va. 577, 585-86, 17 S.E.2d 209, 213 (1941) (Kenna, J., concurring) (It is well established that where the objection to the admission of testimony is based upon some specified ground, the objection is then limited to that precise ground and error cannot be predicated upon the overruling of the objection, and the admission of the testimony on some other ground, since specifying a certain ground of objection is considered a waiver of other grounds not specified.); 1 Jack B. Weinstein et al., Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 103[02] at 103-37 (1995) (stating that a specific objection made on the wrong grounds and overruled precludes a party from raising a specific objection on other, tenable grounds on appeal); see also United States v. Reed, 977 F.2d 14, 16 (1st Cir.1992) (finding that defendant failed to make timely Rule 404(b) objection to admission of prior possession of cocaine conviction where, before trial court, defendant only argued that said admission violated Rule 403); United States v. Mascio, 774 F.2d 219, 221-23 (7th Cir.1985) (stating that defendant cannot raise Rule 404(b) issue for first time on appeal, where objection before trial court only concerned lack of foundation and lack of specificity). Consequently, the Appellant's failure to raise a Rule 404(b) objection before the trial court precludes us from reviewing his Rule 404(b) argument. We further find that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the testimony based on a Rule 609 objection. Rule 609 governs the admissibility of evidence offered for impeachment purposes, and the record clearly indicates that the references to the Appellant's past criminal activity were not offered to impeach his credibility, but rather to determine the basis and validity of the expert's opinion.