Opinion ID: 3008638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mackin Sufficiently Preserved for Appellate

Text: Review the Four Items' Admissibility. Mackin contends that he filed an objection to the Commonwealth's pretrial notice to introduce evidence of other bad acts under Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE) 404(b). But the Commonwealth's KRE 404(b) notice pertained only to testimony that Mackin allegedly raped and sodomized M.M. while traveling outside Kentucky. So, as the Commonwealth notes in its brief, Mackin's written objection to the Commonwealth's KRE 404(b) notice makes no mention of the two pornographic pictures and two incest-related books. The Commonwealth also notes that though Mackin contends that the admissibility of the four items in question was discussed at a pretrial conference, no recording of that conference has been placed in the record . The Commonwealth concedes that a KRE 404(b) hearing occurred concerning the four items in question but contends that the issue is not preserved because Mackin failed to ensure that a recording of that hearing was placed in the record before us.2 The Commonwealth also concedes that Mackin was permitted to raise a continuing objection at trial . The Commonwealth contends that objection was See, e.g., Clark v. Commonwealth , 223 S.W.3d 90,102 (Ky. 2007) (Although each case is factually distinguishable from the one before us, we have consistently and repeatedly held that it is an appellant's responsibility to ensure that the record contains all of the materials necessary for an appellate court to rule upon all the issues raised . And we are required to assume that any portion of the record not supplied to us supports the decision of the trial court.) (footnote omitted) . insufficient for preservation purposes, however, because the objection was subject to the arguments and ruling from the previous hearing . Obviously, we would prefer to have the entire record before us. We urge the parties to any appeal to take great pains to ensure that the record contains everything that an appellate court needs in order to make an informed ruling . But, under the facts of this case, the Commonwealth concedes that Mackin objected to the items' admissibility before trial and renewed that objection during trial, meaning that it stretches credulity to deem these evidentiary issues unpreserved. Although we may not have the benefit of viewing the discussions of counsel and the trial court during the KRE 404(b) hearing, the actual photographs and books themselves are in the record . So we reject the Commonwealth's urging to consider these issues only under the palpable error rule. Instead, we will apply the familiar abuse of discretion test in determining the items' admissibility.5