Opinion ID: 2189569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: The Testimony of Det. A'Vant

Text: The defendant contends that portions of the trial testimony of Det. A'Vant constitute inadmissible hearsay. Detective A'Vant testified that he was present during defendant's arraignment in the Rhode Island District Court before Judge Patricia Moore for violation of a no-contact order. The state asked Det. A'Vant [a]nd at that point in time what did Judge Moore do? The defense then objected without specifying the grounds for the objection. The trial justice allowed Det. A'Vant to answer the question, and Det. A'Vant responded Judge Moore, she arraigned him and she specifically told him, she imposed another no-contact order and I watched her present him with the document. This Court has held that a general objection, with no explanation of the basis for the objection, does not preserve an issue for appellate review. See State v. Morris, 744 A.2d 850, 859 (R.I. 2000). The defense counsel here failed to raise a proper objection, and, therefore, the issue of Det. A'Vant's alleged hearsay testimony has not been preserved for appellate review. Even if this issue had been preserved for appeal the trial justice's decision to allow Det. A'Vant's hearsay testimony would constitute harmless error. Detective A'Vant merely stated that Judge Moore had imposed a no-contact order. The no-contact, orders against defendant, however, already were admitted into evidence. Given that the charges against defendant included violations of a no-contact order, he could not have been prejudiced by this statement.