Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court. (CC-93-233). Robert Austin, TRIAL JUDGE.
Rehearing Denied February 10, 1995. Certiorari Denied May 5, 1995. Released for Publication October 17, 1995.
Patterson, Judge. Bowen, P.j., Taylor, J., And McMILLAN, J., Concur; Montiel, J., Dissents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Patterson
The appellant, Danny Carreker, appeals his conviction for first degree sexual abuse and his subsequent sentence of five years' imprisonment. He raises one issue on appeal.
Carreker contends that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the prosecutor, over his objection, to impeach his credibility by showing that he had a prior conviction for involuntary manslaughter in the state of Georgia. The state contends that Carreker failed to object with sufficient specificity when the question was addressed to Carreker on cross-examination so as to put the trial court on notice of the ground for objection and that Carreker, thus, did not preserve the issue for review on appeal.
We first must determine whether the issue was properly preserved for our review. Carreker filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent the state's use of his prior conviction for impeachment purposes. The court denied this motion by stating, "After consideration, the Court denies your Motion in Limine concerning the manslaughter charge." During the prosecution's cross-examination of Carreker, the following occurred:
"Q. Did you have occasion to be over in the State of Georgia back in 1987?
"Mr. SEAY [defense counsel]: Judge, I'm going to object to this line of questioning.
"THE COURT: That objection has been made outside the presence of the jury. The objection is overruled.
"Q. In February of 1987, in the State of Georgia, you were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, weren't you?
The state's assertion that this issue was not preserved because Carreker failed to make a specific objection during the prosecution's cross-examination is without merit. A specific objection is necessary to put the trial court on notice of the grounds of the objection. It is clear from the trial court's ruling that it was aware of the grounds of Carreker's ...