Ru'nnel v. State

I agree that this case should be affirmed, but I write separately because I believe the issue was preserved for appellate review. I believe the majority has wrongly accepted the State’s contention that this case is controlled by Hubbard v. State, 328 Ark. 658, 946 S.W.2d 663 (1997). There, the supreme court declined to reach an argument concerning an evidentiary ruling. In Hubbard, the State objected to a line of questioning as calling for speculation. The objection was sustained — as seeking inadmissible hearsay — by the trial court after the appellant’s trial counsel asserted that it was…