State v. Ibarra-Ruiz

When a party makes an objection, his explantion of his position must be specific enough to give enough clarity to the court to identify its alleged error and to allow it to consider and correct the error immediatly, if needed.

Defendant appealed convictions for hindering prosecution and conspiracy to commit murder. Defendant claims the trial court erred in admitting testimony of a police officer regarding statements made by Defendant to two interpreters, and he also appealed the trial court's ranking at sentencing of his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder. Defendant was a passenger in a car during a fatal drive-by shooting. Defendant made admissions to his role to police and interpreters. Defendant claims his hearsay objection was incorrectly overruled because the police officer's testimony was based on recounting an interpreter's translated accounts of Defendant's statement. The Court of Appeals held that the issue was never preserved for appeal because when making his objection, Defendant did not refer to any translation of his statement specifically that he objected to. Regarding the second issue, The Court held that the level 11 rank of his conviction was permissible under Apprendi v. New Jersey.