Opinion ID: 1768809
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Recalling Kesterson to Testify

Text: The rule under Ark. R. Evid. 615 was invoked in this case excluding witnesses from the courtroom so that they could not hear the testimony of other witnesses. Holland argues that the circuit court erred in allowing Kesterson to be recalled to the stand to testify regarding changes in her opinion of Holland's intent caused by a discussion she had with investigator Robert Hicks after her initial testimony. Kesterson testified twice in the state's case in the guilt phase. She first testified that she believed Holland's assertion in this interview that he did not intend to kill Sheera. After she first testified and was excused, she met with Robert Hicks who investigated Sheera's death. Hicks told her details about Sheers's injuries and showed her photographs of the body and the autopsy report. After this meeting, Kesterson was recalled in the State's case as the last witness. Upon recall, she affirmed that she had testified earlier that she did not believe that Holland intended to kill Sheera. At this point in Kesterson's testimony, Holland objected, arguing that what was relevant was Kesterson's opinion at the time of the interview and that she had been woodshedded. After this objection, the circuit court instructed the State to pose a hypothetical question to Kesterson, suggesting that the State ask her whether a subsequent understanding of the severity of the injuries in a case would change her opinion. The State did so, and Kesterson testified that her opinion would change. There was no objection to this hypothetical question. Holland raises the issue of Ark. R. Evid. 615 for the first time on appeal. As already stated, issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be addressed. Harris, supra . Further, there was no ruling on the relevance objection. Failure to obtain a ruling precludes review in this court. Dickerson, supra .