Opinion ID: 2499553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pre -Miranda Statement

Text: The State argues that Gilliland failed to preserve the question of whether his pre- Miranda statements must be suppressed. For an evidentiary issue to be preserved for appeal under K.S.A. 60-404, the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether the evidence should be admitted and therefore reduce the chances of reversible error. State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 429, 212 P.3d 165 (2009). Thus, a defendant may not object to the introduction of evidence on one ground at trial and then assert a different objection on appeal. State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 707, 245 P.3d 1030 (2011); State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113, 127, 119 P.3d 1148 (2005); State v. Goseland, 256 Kan. 729, Syl. ¶ 1, 887 P.2d 1109 (1994). Our independent review of the record confirms the State's assertion: Gilliland did not assert a specific objection regarding a Miranda violation. At oral argument before this court, Gilliland's attorney argued the motion to suppress was sufficiently broad to incorporate the objection. We reject this contention. Gilliland's motion to suppress and his arguments at the suppression hearing did not distinguish between pre- Miranda and post- Miranda statements and solely focused on his post- Miranda statements. He contended these statements to police on June 9, 2007, should be suppressed because he was under the influence of an intoxicant at the time of questioning and he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his constitutional rights. Thus, the focus was on his mental acuity and whether his statements to police were involuntary. This is a distinct legal theory from the question of whether a person is in custody and, therefore, entitled to be advised of his or her rights under Miranda. When defense counsel renewed Gilliland's objection to the admission of the statements at trial, there was no mention of the pre- Miranda custody issue or a Miranda violation. Thus, the trial court never had the opportunity to rule on the pre- Miranda issue that Gilliland asserts for the first time on appeal. Because Gilliland failed to object to the pre- Miranda statements at trial, he failed to preserve the issue for appeal.