Opinion ID: 2339307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Order in LiminePreservation of Issue

Text: Before trial, Bennington filed a motion in limine in which he sought to prohibit, inter alia, any reference to his past criminal conduct, including whether he has ever been arrested for a crime, spent any time in a prison or jail, or has ever been on probation or parole. Bennington challenges testimony which referenced his being in custody in Yakima, Washington, when law enforcement from Kansas contacted him. He focuses on the direct examination of Detective Scott Wiswell who testified that after DNA evidence obtained from V.B.'s bed sheet connected Bennington to the crimes, the detective obtained an arrest warrant for Bennington in the state of Washington. The warrant was executed. Based on that warrant, Bennington was arrested and confined at the Yakima police station, where Detective Wiswell was able to interview Bennington. The detective testified that Bennington was in custody during the interview. Bennington contends that the prosecutor violated the order in limine by eliciting testimony about his being in custody. Bennington acknowledges he failed to object at trial to any of the detective's testimony or the prosecutor's questions. Under K.S.A. 60-404, we have established that a contemporaneous objection must be made to all evidentiary claimsincluding those alleging prosecutorial misconductto preserve the issue for appellate review. State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 835, 235 P.3d 436 (2010); see State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 349, 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (noting that K.S.A. 60-404 dictates that evidentiary errors shall not be reviewed on appeal unless a party has lodged a timely and specific objection to the alleged error at trial); cf. State v. Inkelaar, ___ Kan. ___, ___, 264 P.3d 81 (2011) (prosecutorial misconduct argument preserved by evidentiary objection that prosecutor's questions lacked legal or factual basis). Therefore, the issue alleging prosecutorial misconduct involving the improper elicitation of testimony is not properly before this court. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals correctly determined the prosecutor did not improperly elicit the detective's testimony because Bennington's confinement was based on the arrest warrant for the current crime, rather than any prior offense. See Bennington, 2009 WL 981683, at .