COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 8, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT I |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cortez P. Robinson,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. A jury convicted Cortez P. Robinson of first-degree intentional homicide, armed robbery with use of force, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide, all as a party to the crimes. On appeal, Robinson argues that the circuit court erred when it admitted out-of-court statements made to a third party by his accomplice, Aldric Robinson. Because we conclude that the appellant failed to preserve on the record his specific objections to admission of the statements and the circuit court’s ruling on his objection, he waived the right to challenge the ruling on appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.
¶2 Joevashaun Ward owned a white
¶3 At Cortez Robinson’s trial, the State called as a witness Shara Leverston, Aldric Robinson’s girlfriend. When Leverston gave answers that contradicted her earlier statements, the State attempted to impeach her testimony with those statements. In one of her statements, Leverston gave police information that Aldric Robinson had told her about the crimes. Defense counsel requested a sidebar, which was granted. After the sidebar, defense counsel stated that he had asked for the sidebar because he
was concerned where [the prosecutor] was going to go with this witness because there is stuff in her statement alleged to have been said by [his] client that was said to other people or whatever. Basically, I was objecting to her testifying to anything other than the factual observations [Leverston] made that morning, and we discussed that.
I think the court indicated that [the prosecutor] could go into that part, but not the rest. He is now asking about the—what Aldric said or did to implicate himself, and I objected to that. I think you indicated that [the prosecutor] could go into that part, as long [as] it doesn’t talk about my client.
The prosecutor then explained his reasons for attempting to impeach Leverston through her police statement, but agreed that he would “stay away” from asking any questions about Leverston’s statement that would implicate Cortez Robinson.
¶4 On appeal, Robinson argues that the circuit court violated his right to confront the witnesses against him when it allowed Leverston to testify regarding statements Aldric Robinson had made to her. Robinson maintains that those statements indirectly implicated him. In addition, he argues that Leverston’s testimony regarding Aldric Robinson’s statement should have been disallowed as hearsay. We agree with the State, however, that because these objections were never specified on the record to the trial court, they were waived.
¶5 Wisconsin
Stat. § 901.03(1)(a) (2005–06)[1]
provides that “[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or
excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected” and, if
the ruling admits evidence, “a timely objection or motion to strike appears of
record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was
not apparent from the context ….”
This rule forms the basis for sound
trial practice, which requires that objections must be made promptly and “‘in terms which apprise the
court of the exact grounds upon which the objection is based.’” State
v. Wedgeworth, 100
¶6 The
risks of unreported sidebars have long been known to and acknowledged by this
court due to the often unreliable and ambiguous summaries of those conferences that
are then placed in the record:
[S]idebar conferences and after-the-fact summations of those conferences are commonplace in some courtrooms. We caution, however, that appellate review is better served by counsel following the [Wis. Stat. § 901.03(1)(a)] procedure of stating objections and grounds on the record. If a matter is significant enough to invite appellate review, it is too important to subject to a remote summation procedure.
State v. Mainiero,
189
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.