State v. Brunkal

To preserve an issue for appeal, the appellant must provide the trial court with a specific objection that affords the court an opportunity to analyze any alleged error. State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 344-46 (2000).

Defendant was charged with multiple sex offenses against two children. During trial, the arresting officer testified that Defendant had not denied any allegations against him prior to his arrest. Defendant objected to the officer’s testimony and moved to have it struck from the record, stating "We just spoke about that. I don't think that's proper to - the officer make that conclusion, and I'd ask to strike that." However, the trial court denied the motion, and Defendant was convicted.  On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the officer's testimony, arguing that it was more prejudicial than probative under OEC 403. The State countered that Defendant's 403 contention was preserved but must remain consistent with his position in the earlier proceeding.  The Court reasoned that to preserve an issue for appeal, the appellant must provide the trial court with a specific objection that affords the court an opportunity to analyze any alleged error. State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 344-46 (2000).  The Court found that Defendant's objection did not suggest that the admission of the officer's testimony was problematic, and therefore did not preserve Defendant's issues.  Affirmed.