Lead Opinion
Appellant, Pamela Bohannan, admitted liability in this automobile collision case. The only issue triеd to the jury was damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee Carol Underwoоd for $51,140. We affirm.
The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial because appellee testifiеd that she was no longer financially able to see her doctor. Appellant argues that evidence of one’s pecuniary condition is highly prejudicial and should never be heard by a jury unlеss it is directly relevant to some issue in the case. We do not address the issue because it is raised for the first time in this appeal.
Obj ections to еvidence must specify the grounds for the objection unless the specific grounds are apрarent from the context. A.R.E. Rule 103(a)(1). The reasоn for this rule is clear. A timely, specific objeсtion at trial is essential in order to afford the trial court the opportunity to rule. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling admitting evidencе unless there is such a timely, specific objeсtion. A.R.E. Rule 103(a)(1); Walt Bennett Ford, Inc. v. Brown,
The challenged testimony arose as follows;
A. Well, he said that he had done—
MR. SHARP: [Appellant’s attorney] Objection, Your Honor—
THE COURT; That would be hearsay.
THE WITNESS: How do I answer?
MR. GOLDIE: [Appellеes’ attorney] You can’t say what Dr. Butler said, but in — in terms of the decision process, if there was somеthing that Dr. Butler told you, you can say it was something Dr. Butler said, or if it’s another reason that you had, you cаn state your own reasons why, after those few mоnths, you stopped going to Dr. Butler on a regular bаsis.
A. Uh, I couldn’t afford it.
MR. SHARP: Objection, Your Honor, that’s not proper—
THE COURT: What was—
MR. SHARP: —evidence.
THE COURT: What was the question?
MR. GOLDIE: The question was, after the few months of treatment she had with Dr. Butler, why did she stop going on a regular basis to Dr. Butler. And, her response was, that she could not afford it. I think that’s a legitimate question.
THE COURT: And, your objection is what?
(Whereupon, thе following proceedings were had out of thе hearing of the jury.)
MR. SHARP: (At the bench.) I don’t think that’s legitimate еvidence, and I move for a mistrial.
THE COURT: (At the bench.) Wеll, I — I’ll overrule your motion.
Appellant never sрecified the ground now argued for her objeсtion, and it is not readily apparent from the context. Consequently, she is precluded from asserting it for the first time on appeal.
Affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
I agree that the issue is being raised for the first time on appeal, and therefore, we should not consider thе matter. However, that does not imply error. Thе answer given by the plaintiff was proper for the purpose of showing the reason plaintiff was no longer receiving medical treatment. It wеnt to show the extent of her injuries. It was not a general statement of pecuniary condition, and accordingly, was a proper answer.
I concur.