Opinion ID: 1796222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony of Trisha Wyles

Text: During its case-in-chief, the State called Trisha Wyles to testify. Mr. Wyles attempted to bolster his case by showing that he had never engaged in violent or threatening behavior with his wife. During defense counsel's cross-examination of Trisha, the following colloquy took place: DEFENSE COUNSEL: And during this time that you lived in the home with him, have you ever seen your father physically assault or attack THE STATE: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay, Approach THE STATE: How is this relevant? DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your opening statement and your voir dire talked about that issue. THE STATE: I'm just asking because it's not relevant. THE COURT: I don't think that is relevant. I'll sustain that objection. [Defense Counsel], you may move to your next question. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes sir. Thank you. On appeal, Mr. Wyles argues that his line of questioning was proper under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1) (2003). As reflected in the above-quoted colloquy, the Rule 404(a)(1) argument was not made to the trial court. We have steadfastly refused to consider arguments made for the first time on appeal. Barrett v. State, 354 Ark. 187, 119 S.W.3d 485 (2003); See also McDole v. State, 339 Ark. 391, 6 S.W.3d 74 (1999) (holding that a relevance objection based on Rule 402 did not preserve an argument based on Rule 404). The circuit court sustained the State's objection on relevancy grounds, and now Mr. Wyles seeks to challenge that ruling under Rule 404(a)(1). The issue has not been preserved.