Opinion ID: 2350025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidentiary Prosecutorial Misconduct

Text: With regard to Raskie's claim of misconduct based on evidentiary error, he acknowledges that he failed to object at trial to all of the evidence about which he now complains. Moreover, before the district court, he never expressed his argument that a psychological expert had to testify to a link between the grooming behavior and the crimes in order for there to be a foundation supporting the admissibility of the evidence. His failure to make a contemporaneous and specific objection means his appellate argument is not preserved. Under K.S.A. 60-404, this court has established that a contemporaneous objection must be made to all evidentiary claims including those alleging prosecutorial misconductto preserve the issue for appellate review. State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 835, 235 P.3d 436 (2010); see King, 288 Kan. at 349, 204 P.3d 585. The rule is more than a procedural trap; it reflects the policies of having a trial that is a full and fair proceeding and of achieving a final judgment. By seeking to have issues fully explored during the district court proceedings, any error or potential error can be avoided and the district court is able to fulfill its intended role as gatekeeper of admissible evidence. King, 288 Kan. at 349, 204 P.3d 585. Here, neither the State nor the district court had the opportunity to address or consider Raskie's arguments regarding the need for an expert witness. Consequently, the appellate issue was not preserved.