Cite as 336 Ark. 490 (1999)
court of error in order to obtain an appropriate ruling or to preserve an argument for appeal. Brown v. State, 326 Ark. 56, 931 S.W.2d 80 (1996). Apparently, appellant assumed that the rules would be applied as he continued to make objections on these same and on other grounds for evidentiary issues subsequent to these remarks by the court.
I disagree that the testimony of Dorothy Stocks regarding Joe, Barbara, and Heather Stocks was irrelevant. The Stockses were the immediate family of appellant's victim, Heath Stocks. Appellant contends testimony concerning these persons was irrelevant because they are deceased and were not victims of the appellant. The portion of testimony appellant refers to went as follows:
PROSECUTOR: Let me ask you particularly about the Joe Stocks family.
WITNESS: Yes.
PROSECUTOR: Your son, Joe, was a college graduate.
WITNESS: Yes.
PROSECUTOR: As was Barbara.
WITNESS: No, Barbara — Bonnie Gail is. Our daughter.
PROSECUTOR: Your daughter is a college graduate?
WITNESS: Yes.
PROSECUTOR: How were Joe and Barbara employed?
WITNESS: Joe had a — his own trucking business, and Barbara held down two jobs. She worked at the school, and she also worked at the Lonoke County Extension Office. And to do this, Joe worked awful hard, and Barbara did, too, to provide their children with the best that they could furnish them.
PROSECUTOR: If you will, tell me a little bit about Heather.
WITNESS: Heather was an exceptionally bright girl. She —
MR. ALEXANDER: Your Honor, could we approach?
