 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carter v. State9/21/2005
he first opportunity to contest the testimony, which precludes our review of the issue, and this failure does not constitute an exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule. Vaughn v. State, 338 Ark. 220, 992 S.W.2d 785 (1999). Further, the failure to object to a lack of an instruction also precludes our review, and this failure likewise does not fall within an exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule. Willis v. State, 334 Ark. 412, 977 S.W.2d 890 (1998).
Following the filing of his notice of appeal on September 24, 2004, appellant filed on October 25, 2004, a "Motion To Recuse" and a "Motion Seeking Relief." The court denied the motions on October 28, 2004. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions. Appellant, however, did not amend his notice of appeal to include the court's denial of these post-trial motions. His failure to do so precludes our review of the court's ruling, as we do not have jurisdiction. Wright v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___S.W.3d ___ (Nov. 18, 2004).
Finally, appellant argues that the driving-while-intoxicated statute is vague and unconstitutional. Appellant failed to raise this argument at the trial level, and as previously noted, an appellant must raise and make an argument at trial in order to preserve it on appeal, and even constitutional arguments must be presented below to be preserved for appellate review. See, e.g., Clark, supra.
Affirmed.
Neal and Vaught, JJ., agree.
|