Opinion ID: 1804528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: timmens' statements to police

Text: Timmens made statements to investigators on three separate occasions while in custody: during the interview on July 24 and 25, 2000, in Buffalo County, during the interview which began at 4:30 a.m. on July 25 in Dawson County, and during the procedure in which Paul Schwarz took physical samples from him on July 26 in Dawson County. Timmens argues that all three statements should have been suppressed and that the trial court erred by failing to do so. Timmens filed a motion to suppress, and at the suppression hearing, the statements he made in all three instances were considered by the court. The trial court issued three separate orders overruling the motion to suppress, finding that the statements made in each instance were relevant and admissible. Paul Schwarz testified at trial as to the statements Timmens gave on July 26, 2000, during the collection of physical samples. A review of his trial testimony reveals no objection to the admission of that evidence. Jeff Schwarz testified at trial as to the statements Timmens gave on the morning of July 25 in Dawson County. Again, Timmens failed to object to the introduction of that evidence. Both Paul Schwarz and Ricley testified at trial to the statements Timmens made on July 24 and 25, 2000, after being arrested in Buffalo County, and to the written statement Timmens signed. Timmens made no objection to either the statements made or the introduction of the written statement except that the written statement was cumulative and a violation of the rule against jury note-taking. In his brief, however, Timmens objects to the statements as not being the product of his free and rational choice and not being voluntary. It has long been the rule that in a criminal trial, after a pretrial hearing and order denying a motion to suppress, the defendant must object at trial to the admission of evidence sought to be suppressed to preserve an appellate question concerning the admissibility of that evidence. State v. Cody, 248 Neb. 683, 539 N.W.2d 18 (1995). A failure to object to evidence at trial, even though the evidence was the subject of a previous motion to suppress, waives the objection, and that party will not be heard to complain of the alleged error on appeal. State v. Thieszen, 252 Neb. 208, 560 N.W.2d 800 (1997). Although Timmens did make an objection on the basis of the evidence as being cumulative and violative of the rule against jury note-taking, he failed to preserve for review the assignment of error he is now arguing in his brief. Timmens objected to the introduction of the written statement, but not for the same reasons that he alleges in his brief. On appeal, a defendant may not assert a different ground for his objection to the admission of evidence than was offered to the trier of fact. State v. Harris, 263 Neb. 331, 640 N.W.2d 24 (2002). An objection, based on a specific ground and properly overruled, does not preserve a question for appellate review on any other ground. State v. Davlin, 263 Neb. 283, 639 N.W.2d 631 (2002). We conclude that Timmens failed to preserve the question of the admissibility of the statements he gave to investigators in Buffalo County and Dawson County.