up a story similar to hers about touching, [A.H.] being touched by the Defendant.” This is the first and only time in the record any suggestion appears about the victim allegedly admitting to lying about her claims against Swint, and there was no follow up to clarify how this additional component to A.H.’s claimed testimony would somehow have been included in the scope of the court’s prior ruling in limine. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Swint asserted the district court’s error encompassed the evidence that the victim both admitted falsifying her claims about Swint and asked A.H. to malee up a similar story. And complicating the matter further, Swint also altered the legal basis for the claimed error by relying on State v. Barber, 13 Kan. App. 2d 224, 227, 766 P.2d 1288 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The panel unanimously held that Swint failed
holding that in reviewing confrontation clause challenge appellate courts must first determine whether the confrontation clause is implicated holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment holding victim in sex crime case may be crossexamined about prior false accusations based on constitutional confrontation clause rights despite ksa 60422d restrictions holding errors based on the constitutional rights to confrontation and due process may be waived by failure to object at trial holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue