Defendant sought to suppress the video of his arrest where he held a knife to his throat but he cited nothing for the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment, but he did cite Rule 403. The state argued it was evidence of consciousness of guilt. The trial court’s denial was not an abuse of discretion as to 403, and the constitutional claims on the arrest won’t be considered for failure to present below. McKee v. State, 2020 Ark. 327 (Oct. 15, 2020):
At the conclusion of the hearing on McKee’s motion, the circuit court stated: “All right. As to the motion to suppress the video tape and the 403 argument and the State’s consciousness of guilt argument and the supporting information, the Court denies the motion.” There was never any mention of a warrant (or lack thereof) or whether McKee’s rights pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were implicated. McKee certainly didn’t argue that the circuit court was denying his motion without holding the State to its proper burden of proof. It is well settled that a party is bound by the nature and scope of the objections and arguments made at trial and may not enlarge or change those grounds on appeal. See, e.g., Stewart v. State, 2012 Ark. 349, at 8, 423 S.W.3d 69, 74. Accordingly, we do not address this argument.