Opinion ID: 1950123
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Mr Gilchrist's Failure to Raise the Constitutional Claim in the Trial Court

Text: The government is correct in its argument against Mr. Gilchrist's first contention in this court, since the record leaves no doubt that he failed to make a constitutional claim in the trial court relating to the first prong of the Laumer test. Indeed, he only made a general credibility determination claim, and categorically argued that the trial judge had to determine the credibility of Mr. Hamilton. Nevertheless, in an effort to persuade us that his constitutional claim is properly before this court, Mr. Gilchrist relies principally on Yee v. Escondido. [12] That reliance is misplaced; there, the Court concluded that [p]etitioners unquestionably raised a taking claim in the state courts, and therefore, [t]he question whether the rent control ordinance took their property without compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause, [was] properly before [it]. [13] The critical legal principle enunciated in Yee centered on the requirement of a claim properly raised in the trial court, and Yee signaled that only with respect to a properly raised claim does an appellant generally posses[] the ability to frame the question to be decided in any way he chooses, without being limited to the manner in which the question was framed in the trial court. [14] Thus, consistent with Yee, we have distinguished between claims and arguments, reiterating in Salmon v. United States, that although claims not presented in the trial court ordinarily will not be considered on appeal, parties are not limited to the precise arguments made below. [15] Here, we are convinced that the trial judge was not fairly apprised that Mr. Gilchrist was raising a constitutional claim with respect to the first Laumer prong. [16] Simply put, the constitutional claim presented in this court is not fairly included in the question presented to the trial court regarding the question of a witness' general credibility and the first prong of Laumer. [17] Furthermore, Mr. Gilchrist specifically asked the trial court to determine Mr. Hamilton's credibility, and [w]e have repeatedly held that a defendant may not take one position at trial and a contradictory position on appeal. [18] In short, we hold that Mr. Gilchrist failed to raise in the trial court a constitutional claim against the first prong of the Laumer test, and hence, we decline to consider that claim.