Opinion ID: 2639911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the District Court Abuse Its Discretion in Admitting into Evidence a Videotape of the Alternate Route?

Text: Richard Gill, Ph. D., one of Slack's expert witnesses, took a videotape of the dirt road that paralleled Highway 19. Kelleher contends that it was error for the trial court to admit that video into evidence for three reasons. 1. Should the videotape have been excluded because its content was not properly disclosed? Kelleher first argues that the content of the videotape was not properly disclosed in pretrial discovery and that it should therefore not have been admitted into evidence. He contends that the videotape was disclosed as being a video of Highway 19, not of the dirt road paralleling the Highway. In her brief, Slack counters that Kelleher never objected to the admission of the videotape on the ground that its content had not been properly disclosed during pretrial discovery. In his reply brief, Kelleher asserts that he at least three times objected to the use of the videotape for this purpose on the grounds that the videotape had been disclosed only for the purposes of showing the section of Highway 19 where the accident took place. The record does not support Kelleher's assertion. Prior to jury selection on the first day of trial, Kelleher's counsel asked the district court to prevent Slack's counsel from discussing the dirt road during voir dire or in his opening statement in order to give the court an opportunity to rule on whether such evidence was relevant. During his argument regarding that request, Kelleher's counsel did state, And as I said, until Tuesday of last week, we always thought this whole concept was, well, we're just  the idea was presented, well, here's the general overview of the area. Now all of a sudden its [an] alternative route. This is the first occasion where Kelleher asserts that he objected to the use of the videotape for this purpose on the grounds that the videotape had been disclosed only for the purposes of showing the section of Highway 19 where the accident took place. There was no such objection  only a passing comment. Kelleher's counsel did not ask the district court to bar use of the videotape because its content had not been properly disclosed. Rather, he asked that opposing counsel be prevented from mentioning during voir dire or his opening statement that Kelleher could have taken an alternate route, in order to give the district court time to rule on the relevance of such evidence. The district court granted that request with respect to voir dire in order to give the court an opportunity to read the cases cited by Kelleher. After jury selection, the district court ruled that it would not allow such evidence at all. During the morning of the second day of trial, Slack's counsel brought up the issue of the relevance of such evidence and provided the district court with additional case authority. After recessing to review the authority, the district court held that the evidence was relevant. In response, Kelleher's counsel argued that the alternative route theory had not been alleged in the complaint. During his argument on that issue, he stated: And so the framework as to what we were anticipating trying in this case was that we are trying this case based upon the lighting and the vehicles on the highway. It wasn't until Mr. Hepworth on Tuesday said, well, we also are planning to introduce this video for the purpose of showing an alternate route that we actually understood that their case was now focusing not on the lighting as set forth in the complaint, but on this different theory. This is the second occasion where Kelleher asserts that he objected to the use of the videotape for this purpose on the grounds that the videotape had been disclosed only for the purposes of showing the section of Highway 19 where the accident took place. Again, there was no such objection. The district court ruled that under notice pleading, the general allegation of negligence was sufficient to include negligence by failing to take a safer alternate route. The videotape was then played for the district court. After watching it, the district court asked Slack's counsel when the videotape was disclosed. He responded that the existence of the videotape was disclosed at Dr. Gill's deposition taken on May 25, 2001; that Dr. Gill had brought the video to the deposition in response to the subpoena duces tecum; that Dr. Gill had disclosed the existence of the alternate route at his deposition; and that the video had been included on exhibit lists. Slack's counsel admitted, however, that during Dr. Gill's deposition there had been no specific statement that the video showed the alternate route. In response to that statement, Kelleher's counsel said: I think counsel was just very forthright right now with respect to what the disclosure was of, the video of Highway 19. And the rest of the tape shows traveling on Highway 19. And so that is where the focus is as we anticipated this to be. This is the third occasion where Kelleher asserts that he objected to the use of the videotape for this purpose on the grounds that the videotape had been disclosed only for the purposes of showing the section of Highway 19 where the accident took place. Again, there was no such objection. Kelleher never asked the district court to exclude the video on the ground that its content was not timely disclosed. Generally, this Court will not consider an alleged error on appeal unless a timely objection to the alleged error was made at trial. State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 77 P.3d 956 (2003); I.R.E. 103(a)(1). For an objection to be preserved for appellate review, either the specific ground for the objection must be clearly stated, or the basis of the objection must be apparent from the context. Id. An objection to the admission of evidence on one basis does not preserve a separate and different basis for excluding the evidence. State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 77 P.3d 956 (2003). Because Kelleher never objected to the admission of the videotape on the ground that its content was not properly disclosed during pretrial discovery, we will not consider that issue on appeal. 2. Did Slack show that the road was open for use by the public? Kelleher next asserts that there was a lack of foundation for the admission of the videotape and the testimony regarding the alternate route because Slack did not establish that the dirt road was open for use by the public. He did not make that objection at trial. There are generally two issues regarding the admission of evidence. The first is whether the evidence is relevant, and the second is whether a proper foundation has been laid for its admission. These are two separate issues. Relevance is an issue of law. State v. Page, 135 Idaho 214, 16 P.3d 890 (2000). Whether or not a proper foundation has been laid for the admission of the evidence is a discretionary decision to be made by the trial court. State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 77 P.3d 956 (2003). After the district court ruled that evidence of the alternate route was relevant, Kelleher's counsel asserted that there was no foundation that the dirt road was open to public use. At least a portion of the road appeared to be owned by the Simplot Company. Kelleher's counsel stated that Simplot's manager would testify that it would have been trespassing for Kelleher to have used the road. Slack's counsel responded that he was unaware of any disclosure by Kelleher that he would call the plant manager to so testify. Slack's counsel related his conversations with personnel in Simplot's legal department who stated that the road was open for public use. At that point, the district court was presented with conflicting assertions as to whether an adequate foundation could be established showing that the dirt road was a safer route that was open to public use. Not having heard any foundation evidence, the district court could not at that point rule on the issue. The court simply reaffirmed its prior ruling that the evidence was relevant. The first witness called by Slack's counsel was the deputy sheriff who investigated the accident. Slack's counsel questioned him, without objection, as to the existence of the dirt road. He stated that he did not know if it was a road, but it was an open area. Kelleher's counsel also cross-examined the deputy about the dirt road, eliciting testimony that it was not marked as a road on any of the maps he uses, that he did not know if it was private property, that he has not noticed a lot of vehicles using it, and that it is not posted no trespassing or private property. Slack's counsel next called Dr. Gill to testify. Near the end of his direct examination, Slack's counsel asked to show the videotape of the dirt road. Kelleher's counsel objected to the showing of the video on the following ground, Your Honor, I don't think there's foundation as to what was there on the date of the accident compared to what was there on a nice summer day. He did not object on the ground that there was inadequate foundation showing that Kelleher could lawfully use the road. An objection to the admission of evidence on one basis does not preserve a separate and different basis for excluding the evidence. State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 77 P.3d 956 (2003). Because Kelleher did not object on the ground that there was no foundation showing that the dirt road was a safer route open for public use, we will not consider that objection on appeal. After Slack's counsel completed his direct examination of Dr. Gill, he offered the videotape into evidence. Kelleher's counsel objected on the following ground: MR. SAETRUM: Your Honor, this court has previously prohibited us from introducing a photograph of the area alleging that on the basis that it wasn't at the time and date or wasn't at the time and date and of the circumstances of this accident. And I would object  THE COURT: I want to clarify that. That ruling was made by Judge Gutierrez. It wasn't changed, and the motion wasn't made until after the time was set for the scheduling order had expired. And that was the basis for the court's ruling last Tuesday. MR. SAETRUM: And, Your Honor, with respect to the issue of the introduction, I continue on with the  if that photograph is not allowed, then an even more distant video than the photograph should not be allowed. Object for those reasons. Again, he did not object on the ground that there was inadequate foundation showing that Kelleher could lawfully have used the dirt road. Because Kelleher did not object on that ground, we will not consider that objection on appeal. State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 77 P.3d 956 (2003). 3. Did the district court err by failing to strike evidence regarding the dirt road? Finally, Kelleher argues that the district court erred by not striking the evidence of the alternate route after Slack had failed to show that it was lawful for him to have used the dirt road. Kelleher admitted during oral argument that he never asked the district court to strike such evidence. If a party contends that the foundation is inadequate for admitting evidence offered by the opposing party, the party must make a proper objection. Miller v. Callear, 140 Idaho 213, 91 P.3d 1117 (2004). Where no motion to strike was made and no ruling was requested or made by the trial court, such alleged error was not preserved for consideration on appeal. Objections to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Taylor, 76 Idaho 358, 283 P.2d 582 (1955); Goody v. Maryland Casualty Co., 53 Idaho 523, 25 P.2d 1045; Neff v. Hysen, 72 Idaho 470, 244 P.2d 146.