ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN F. STROUD, JR., CHIEF JUDGE

DIVISION IV

JOE GLENN BOBLETT

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 01-1247

October 23, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE BOONE

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[CR98-12]

HONORABLE ROBERT

McCORKINDALE, II,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Joe Glenn Boblett was convicted by a Boone County jury of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. The jury sentenced him to ten years in the Arkansas Department of Correction on each conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, Boblett contends that "the trial court erred when it refused to sustain the appellant's objection that the prosecutor was misleading the jury as to the cross-examination of the investigator of the alleged child victim, and that specifically, as a result of the misleading nature of the State's statements, the jury was misled by the testimony and response of the investigator." He also argues that in failing to sustain this objection, the trial court violated Rule 611 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. We affirm the convictions.

The sexual abuse of which appellant was convicted stemmed from two incidents with his ten-year-old stepdaughter. At trial, the State called as a witness Jack Hutson, the Boone County Sheriff's Office investigator who interviewed the victim. Hutson testified that he interviewed the victim twice, once at school and again at the sheriff's department; he said that the victim gave him basically the same information during both interviews. On cross-examination, appellant's counsel questioned Hutson regarding the techniques he used in interviewing the victim, focusing particularly on whether he asked the victim leading questions. On redirect, the following colloquy occurred:

PROSECUTOR: So you then repeat, "well, you're through playing Nintendo, what did he say to you?" What did she say?

HUTSON: "He told me not to tell anybody."

PROSECUTOR: Nothing leading in that question, "what did he say to you," is there?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Well, Your Honor, I'm going to object as this is misleading the jury is that I never asked this witness those questions as to whether they were leading. The prosecutor appears to be letting the jury think that I thought those questions were leading and that's not the questions I asked.

TRIAL COURT: The objection will be overruled.

Appellant seems to argue on appeal that the prosecutor's questions on redirect examination dealt with immaterial matters and were designed "to confuse the jury as to what questions were actually discussed during the cross-examination." He contends that the trial judge erred when he "did not attempt to ascertain the intent or to correct any damage created by misleading the jury." We do not find this argument persuasive.

With regard to redirect examination, our supreme court has stated:

This court has recognized that the scope and extent of redirect examination lie within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge. In this matter, this court has recognized that the court's discretion is very liberal. The basic function of redirect examination is to enable the witness to explain and clarify any relevant matters in his or her testimony which have been weakened, confused or obscured by cross-examination and to rebut the discrediting effect of any damaging statements or admissions or to correct any wrong impression that may have been created. In addition, a judge under his discretionary power may permit the party to bring out on redirect examination some matter which is relevant to his case or defense and which through oversight he has failed to elicit on direct.

Easter v. State, 306 Ark. 452, 454-55, 815 S.W.2d 924, 926 (1991) (citations omitted).

In the present case, appellant's counsel questioned the investigator with regard to the procedures he used in questioning the ten-year-old victim, especially with regard to whether the investigator asked the child leading questions. On redirect, the prosecutor was entitled to attempt to clarify what type of questions the investigator asked the victim and how he conducted his interview. There was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in allowing such redirect examination.

Appellant's contention that the trial court's failure to sustain his objection to the prosecutor's questions violated Rule 611 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure is not preserved for appeal. An appellant's arguments are confined to the objections raised to the trial court. See Hart v. State, 77 Ark. App. 206, 72 S.W.3d 540 (2002). There is no indication in the abstract that appellant made this particular objection to the trial court; therefore, we do not consider this aspect of his appellate argument.

Affirmed.

Crabtree and Baker, JJ., agree.