NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

WELCH, J.

Defendant, David Daigle, was charged by bill of information with sexual battery, a violation of La. R.S. 14:43.1. He pled not guilty. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve one year in the parish jail, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. Defendant now appeals, alleging one assignment of error. For the following reasons, we affirm defendant's conviction and sentence.

FACTS

On or about November 7, 2009, R.F.1 (the victim) went to defendant's home on Rip Duplessis Road in Ascension Parish to babysit. Defendant is married to R.F.'s father's former girlfriend, Adele Daigle, and he is stepfather to R.F.'s half sister, T.F. Defendant and Adele also are parents to a young child, T.D. R.F. had agreed to babysit both T.F. and T.D. for the evening, but when she arrived at defendant's home, she was informed that defendant and Adele had decided not to go out for the night. R.F. decided to stay and visit with her half sister, T.F.

That night, defendant cooked a late dinner for everyone. Adele eventually went to sleep, but R.F., T.F., and defendant stayed awake to watch television with T.D. When T.D. fell asleep, R.F. went to the master bedroom to place him in his crib. She returned to the living room, where defendant showed her a pornographic picture on his cell phone. R.F. went to her sister's bedroom to tell her about the picture defendant had shown her, and she asked her sister to sleep in the living room with her that night. In the early morning hours of November 8, defendant returned to the living room while R.F. and T.F. were watching television. He sat on the sofa with R.F. and started to rub her feet, eventually telling R.F. that they were "sexy." Feeling uncomfortable, R.F. pulled her feet toward her body. She eventually fell asleep.

Sometime later, R.F. woke up to defendant leaning on her. Upon seeing that R.F. was awake, defendant told her that she had a nice chest. At that time, he also showed R.F. another lewd picture on his cell phone. R.F. rolled over to face the back of the sofa and again fell asleep.

Finally, in the early morning, R.F. woke up to defendant's hand inside her underwear, on top of her vagina. When R.F. asked what he was doing, defendant said that he was not doing anything, and he quickly pulled his hand out of her underwear. R.F. grabbed her keys and overnight bag and walked out of defendant's trailer toward her car. Defendant followed her and yelled to her that nobody would believe her if she went to the police and that, if she did so, she would no longer have a family. R.F. went home to bathe, and then went to her aunt's house to tell her what defendant had done. Her aunt advised her that she should go to the police or tell her boyfriend, John DeQuint. R.F. initially elected not to tell the police because she was scared, but at some point, she informed her boyfriend of what had happened.

On November 27, 2009, R.F. was briefly hospitalized for an unrelated condition. Upon leaving the hospital that same day, she called Adele to ask for the money she was owed for babysitting on the night of the incident. Adele told R.F. that she had the money, so R.F. and DeQuint headed to Adele and defendant's home. Upon arriving, R.F. went inside and noticed defendant was in bed. Adele informed her that defendant did not have her money, DeQuint came inside the home and asked defendant to give R.F. her money. After a while, DeQuint went into the back bedroom and asked defendant whether he was going to get R.F. her money, and a fight broke out between DeQuint and defendant. R.F. and DeQuint left defendant's home, and DeQuint briefly fled town because he was on parole. On November 30, 2009, R.F. finally reported defendant's illicit touching to the police.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

In his sole assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his right to present a defense. Specifically, defendant alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to introduce into evidence a photograph of his injuries from his fight with DeQuint. According to defendant, that photograph would have demonstrated R.F.'s motivation to fabricate her story of sexual battery for the jury.

Defendant testified on his own behalf at trial. In his testimony, defendant stated that DeQuint was the aggressor of the fight, that DeQuint pushed him over his nightstand and pinned him onto his bed, and that the fight resulted in defendant breaking his nose. Defendant claimed that he never punched DeQuint, but DeQuint claimed in his earlier testimony that defendant threw the first blow.2

During his testimony, defendant sought to introduce a picture of his injuries from the fight. The state immediately objected to the relevance of the photograph. Defense counsel argued that the photograph was relevant because it spoke negatively to DeQuint's testimony that he had hit defendant only one time. The trial court sustained the state's objection, finding that there was no probative value to the photograph. Defense counsel did not object to this ruling, nor did he argue during the state's objection that the photograph was relevant to show R.F.'s motivation to fabricate a story about defendant.

To preserve the right to appellate review of an alleged trial court error, a party must state a contemporaneous objection with the occurrence of the alleged error as well as grounds for the objection. La. C.Cr.P. art. 841. Here, defendant did neither when the trial court sustained the state's objection to the introduction of the photograph. Further, to preserve the right to appeal a district court ruling which excludes evidence, a defendant must make the substance of the evidence known to the district court. See La. C.E. art. 103(A)(2); State v. Lynch, 94-0543 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/5/95), 655 So.2d 470, 480, writ denied, 95-1441 (La. 11/13/95), 662 So.2d 466. Again, defendant failed to make any such proffer. For these reasons, defendant is procedurally barred from raising this assignment of error on appeal.

We further note that defendant's assignment of error, as stated in his appellate brief, also presents nothing for review. In that brief, defendant contends that the photograph excluded by the trial court was relevant to "show R.F.'s motivation to fabricate a story" against defendant. However, the only argument defense counsel raised at trial with respect to the introduction of this photograph centered upon its relevance to impugn DeQuint's credibility. Defense counsel presented no argument during the objection regarding the victim's motivation. Thus, even if defendant's counterargument to the state's objection had been sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue raised in that counterargument is not the same as the one raised in the instant appeal. It is well established in our law that a new basis for an objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See State v. Cressy, 440 So.2d 141, 142-43 (La. 1983).

This assignment of error is without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED.