 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burnett v. State6/26/2003
99). Accordingly, we find no grounds for reversal.
Authentication
Appellant also alleges that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence State's Exhibit Eighteen, the board that Knight used to fight off appellant's attack. According to appellant, Exhibit Eighteen was not the same board used by Knight. However, we will not consider this argument as it was not preserved for appeal.
We have stated that "the purpose of the contemporaneous-objection rule is to give the trial court a fair opportunity to consider an allegation of error and to correct it, if the allegation is meritorious." Gamble v. State, 351 Ark. 541, 548, 95 S.W.3d 755, 760 (2003). To preserve an issue for appeal, a proper objection must be made at the first opportunity after the matter to which objection has been made occurs. Id. at 549, 95 S.W.3d at 760. Appellant did not lodge an objection to the admission of the exhibit; therefore, we affirm the court's ruling below.
Conflict of Interest
Finally, appellant claims that he did not receive a fair trial because the prosecutor was previously acquainted with Knight's daughter, causing a conflict of interest. However, we decline to consider this argument as it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Windsor v. State, 338 Ark. 649, 655, 1 S.W.3d 20, 24 (1999). Accordingly, appellant's claim is procedurally barred.
Affirmed.
Corbin, J., not participating.
|