Opinion ID: 1711914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Robert Sklenar

Text: Robert Sklenar, an Omaha police detective, testified that Sklenar and Cass had questioned Harris about this case and another case. After the prosecuting attorney had asked Sklenar another question and Sklenar had answered that question, defense counsel said that he would object at this point. An off-the-record discussion was held, and examination of Sklenar resumed without the court's making any statement for the record. The statement to which the objection was directed is not apparent from the record. It is incumbent upon an appellant to supply a record which supports his or her appeal. State v. Kanarick, 257 Neb. 358, 598 N.W.2d 430 (1999). In this instance, neither the basis for the objection nor any ruling on the objection appears in the record. This court has held that a party who fails to insist upon a ruling to a proffered objection waives that objection. State v. Nowicki, 239 Neb. 130, 474 N.W.2d 478 (1991). We have also stated that a prerequisite to an appeal based upon error in the admission of evidence is a timely objection stating the grounds therefor, unless the grounds are apparent from the context. State v. Hicks, 241 Neb. 357, 488 N.W.2d 359 (1992). As the record before us shows neither the basis for Harris' objection nor any ruling on the objection, we conclude that Harris has waived any error in this regard. We also note that no motion to strike any offending testimony is reflected in the record. The failure to make a timely and proper objection or motion to strike will ordinarily bar a party from later claiming error in the admission of testimony. See State v. Neujahr, 248 Neb. 965, 540 N.W.2d 566 (1995). Furthermore, even if an objection based on § 27-404(2) had been properly preserved, it is apparent that such objection was without merit. Section 27-404(2) provides, as relevant, that [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith. Sklenar's testimony established only that Harris had been questioned regarding this case and another case. This was not evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts within the meaning of § 27-404(2).