Opinion ID: 1394134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: compelled testimony

Text: The City contends that the district court committed reversible error when it required counsel for the City, while conducting redirect examination of the City's expert, to inquire about other accidents unrelated to the accident in question. We find no error. It is fundamental that an issue not raised at trial will not be considered by this Court when raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Doe, 123 Idaho 370, 371, 848 P.2d 428, 429 (1993). Not only is there no evidence that the district court forced counsel for the City to elicit testimony involuntarily, the City did not state an objection to the alleged compulsion at trial. Accordingly, the City cannot now complain about the testimony to which it refers.