Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 358 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-25-239 CHRISTIE ANN KING Opinion Delivered August 19, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 02CR-24-128] HONORABLE ROBERT B. GIBSON III, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge Christie King appeals her convictions for possession of more than ten grams of methamphetamine with the purpose to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia with the purpose to process, prepare, analyze, pack, or repack methamphetamine. King argues that (1) the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing evidence of her prior convictions during the guilt phase, and (2) this evidentiary error was not harmless. We affirm. King’s property was searched pursuant to a search warrant. Law enforcement looked in a shed and discovered more than ten grams of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The search revealed individual plastic baggies of methamphetamine, a portable electronic scale, a plastic bag of what appeared to be marijuana, and a plastic container with various unidentified pills that were suspected to be scheduled medications.1 King’s niece was on the scene. King arrived and interacted with police, who arrested her when she claimed that the items found in the shed (owned solely by her) were hers. King was transported to the police station where she waived her Miranda rights and gave a statement in which she confessed that what they found in the shed was hers and said she was trying to sell drugs to pay some bills. After the State rested, King took the stand in her own defense. She immediately admitted that she had two drug-related felony convictions. According to King, one conviction was related to “weed,” and the other conviction happened because she gave a girl a ride home, and the girl had a methamphetamine lab in her house. King admitted that she has a history with drugs; she knows what methamphetamine looks like; and there were a lot of drugs and paraphernalia in the shed. She said that she “claimed” the drugs because she did not want her niece to be arrested and charged with the offenses. King told the jury she found the drugs and paraphernalia one day before the police did, and she knew who it belonged to, but she had not figured out what to do with it or how to get rid of it. She told the jury that she had been guilty before, she admitted it, but this time, she “didn’t do it.” On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked King if she had pleaded guilty in 2013 to manufacturing methamphetamine and been sentenced to community corrections, and King 1 The State ultimately nolle prossed a charge related to the pills: possession of a controlled substance with the purpose to deliver. 2 said, “yes, ma’am.” The prosecutor moved to admit a certified copy of the 2013 conviction. King said that it was an “attempt” to manufacture. Defense counsel then said, “I’m going to object to the admission of that into evidence. We’re not in sentencing, Your Honor.” The circuit court ruled: I’m going to allow its admission, and I’m doing it because, for the record, when she was asked about her felony history, while she admitted to having a felony history, she tried to essentially at the same time profess that she was innocent of the charges, that it was all bad timing, et cetera. And so the door in my opinion is wide open to go into what her history is in particular in light of the fact that she’s also stated that if she’s ever done anything wrong, she’s already admitted to it. And so her history and what she’s admitted to, and hasn’t admitted to, or what she’s saying now is wide open for cross-examination. Defense counsel did not respond to the circuit court’s ruling that King herself had “opened the door” to this evidence. The prosecutor continued cross-examination, asking King if she pleaded guilty in 2021 to possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. King confirmed that to be true, explaining that she had a container that contained methamphetamine residue as well as “some weed.” The State presented the 2021 conviction to the circuit court, and defense counsel made the “same objection,” which was overruled. Both convictions were admitted into evidence. The jury found King guilty, and this appeal followed. On appeal, King asserts that the circuit court “abused [its] discretion when it admitted evidence of prior convictions for the express purpose of proving guilt.” King argues that this was improper character evidence, it was admitted in violation of Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b), and the State failed to present a valid alternative basis for which this evidence might 3 be relevant and admissible. King asserts that these arguments were “alluded to” at trial and provide the basis for reversal on appeal. The State asserts, and we agree, that King’s arguments on appeal are not preserved for review. Parties cannot change the grounds for an objection on appeal but are bound by the scope and nature of their objections as presented at trial. Hicks v. State, 2017 Ark. 262, 526 S.W.3d 831. The sole comment defense counsel presented as a reason to reject the admission of the prior convictions was that “[w]e’re not in sentencing.” It is true that certain evidence is admissible at sentencing that would not generally have been admissible at the guilt phase of the trial. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-97-103 (Supp. 2023). However, King did not develop or raise any further objection. King did not offer any argument about whether King had “opened the door” to allow admission of this evidence. To preserve an argument for appeal, there must be an objection in the circuit court that is sufficient to apprise the court of the particular error alleged, and the appellate court will not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Leach v. State, 2012 Ark. 179, 402 S.W.3d 517. Nowhere at trial did King raise Rule 404, exceptions to the general rule of exclusion, or “improper character evidence,” and King obviously failed to obtain a ruling on these expanded arguments. Accordingly, King’s arguments are not preserved for our review. See Pamplin v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 225, 711 S.W.3d 863; Lester v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 206, 687 S.W.3d 344. Affirmed. HARRISON and MURPHY, JJ., agree. 4 Matt Kezhaya and Sonia Kezhaya, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 5