Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Collateral Challenges to Criminal Convictions," Keith G. Meyer and Larry W. Yackle, 21 K.L.R. 259, 314 (1973).

"Hearsay Explaining Police Actions: The Proper Objection," Russell M. Coombs, 46 J.B.A.K. 157, 165 (1977).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Criminal Law and Procedure," Keith G. Meyer, 27 K.L.R. 391, 426, 427 (1979).

"Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument," Alan V. Johnson and Jeffrey S. Southard, 49 J.B.A.K. 205, 245, 246 (1980).

"Objections," Laurence Rose, 2 J.K.T.L.A. No. 3, 18 (1978).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Evidence," Mark M. Dobson, 32 K.L.R. 625, 628 (1984).

"Warning: Failure to Counter an Objection may be Hazardous to Your Case," Vol. IX, No. 2, J.K.T.L.A. 23 (1985).

"A Fresh Look at Hypothetical Questions and Ultimate Issues: The Kansas Experience," Stanley D. Davis, 36 K.L.R. 311, 320, 328 (1988).

"Preserving the Record in Criminal Law Cases—The Offer of Proof," Stephen M. Joseph, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXIII, No. 2, 16 (1999).

"A Criminal Defendant's Inability to Sue His Lawyer for Malpractice: The Other Side of the Exoneration Rule [Canaan v. Bartee, 72 P.3d 911 (Kan. 2003)]," Amy L. Leisinger, 44 W.L.J. 693 (2005).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Contemporaneous objection rule; timely and specific objection required for reversal because of erroneous admission of evidence. State v. Freeman, 195 Kan. 561, 564, 408 P.2d 612.

2. Section applied; no objection to evidence made. Grohusky v. Atlas Assurance Co., 195 Kan. 626, 629, 408 P.2d 697.

3. No timely and specific objection made to testimony; conviction under K.S.A. 21-527 upheld. State v. Jolly, 196 Kan. 56, 58, 410 P.2d 267.

4. Trial objection to inadmissible evidence prerequisite to reversal. State v. Donahue, 197 Kan. 317, 320, 416 P.2d 287.

5. Erroneous admission of evidence must be objected to in a timely manner. State v. Adamson, 197 Kan. 486, 489, 419 P.2d 860.

6. Verdict not set aside unless objection to erroneous evidence timely made. Borggren v. Liebling, 198 Kan. 161, 164, 422 P.2d 884.

7. Mentioned in considering alleged unlawful search and seizure. State v. Zimmer, 198 Kan. 479, 500, 426 P.2d 267.

8. Defendants failed to make timely and specific objection to evidence of prior convictions during trial. State v. Eaton, 199 Kan. 610, 613, 433 P.2d 347.

9. Cited; verdict not so excessive as to indicate passion and prejudice on part of jury. Howard v. Stoughton, 199 Kan. 787, 792, 433 P.2d 567.

10. Contemporaneous objection must be made to exclude secondary evidence; "best evidence rule" is preferential, not exclusionary rule. State v. Joseph Little, 201 Kan. 101, 104, 105, 439 P.2d 383.

11. Objections to admissibility of evidence will not be considered for first time on appeal in absence of timely objection. State v. Cantrell, 201 Kan. 182, 187, 440 P.2d 580.

12. Failure to object to testimony during trial precludes raising the matter for first time on appeal. State v. Paxton, 201 Kan. 353, 360, 440 P.2d 650.

13. Applied; admission of summary of testimony; objection did not clearly state specific grounds; not considered on appeal. Humphries v. State Highway Commission, 201 Kan. 544, 550, 551, 442 P.2d 475.

14. Applied; action to set aside transfer of property; findings supported by evidence. In re Estate of Carlson, 201 Kan. 635, 636, 646, 443 P.2d 673.

15. Failure to object may preclude consideration of claim in federal habeas corpus proceeding if done deliberately as part of defense strategy. Mize v. Crouse, 399 F.2d 593, 594.

16. No error in admitting in-court identification of defendant absent defendant's contemporaneous objection thereto. State v. Sanders, 202 Kan. 551, 553, 451 P.2d 148.

17. Mentioned; evidence admitted was collateral and not prejudicial. State v. Runnels, 203 Kan. 513, 518, 519, 456 P.2d 16.

18. Evidence of prior convictions admitted; objection posed by defendant insufficient to serve as basis for new trial. State v. Patchett, 203 Kan. 642, 645, 455 P.2d 580.

19. Specific ground of objection to evidence not clear; court's ruling in admitting the evidence upheld even though trial court unclear as to basis for its admission. Scogin v. Nugen, 204 Kan. 568, 577, 464 P.2d 166.

20. "Contemporaneous objection" rule provides court the opportunity to conduct trial without using tainted evidence. Baker v. State, 204 Kan. 607, 611, 464 P.2d 212.

21. Section applied; specific and timely objection to admission of evidence necessary; no reversible error shown. Jensen v. Jensen, 205 Kan. 465, 466, 470 P.2d 829.

22. Cited in reversing conviction of county attorney for criminal contempt. In re Sanborn, 208 Kan. 4, 14, 490 P.2d 598.

23. Cited in holding evidence of membership in revolutionary society properly admitted. State v. Pierce, et al., 208 Kan. 19, 29, 490 P.2d 584.

24. Cited; plaintiff held barred from asserting trial court erred in admitting testimony due to contemporaneous objection rule. State, ex rel., v. Doolin & Shaw, 209 Kan. 244, 256, 497 P.2d 138.

25. Admission of automobile title copies under K.S.A. 60-460(o) without furnishing copies as provided therein not challenged at trial; cannot be reversed on appeal. State v. Kliewer, 210 Kan. 820, 825, 504 P.2d 580 (1972).

26. Contemporaneous objection rule; timely and specific objection required before admissibility of evidence will be considered on appeal. Barnes v. St. Francis Hospital and School of Nursing, 211 Kan. 315, 320, 507 P.2d 288.

27. Cited; defendant waived any impropriety in form of question by failure to object; conviction upheld. State v. Marsh, 211 Kan. 585, 586, 506 P.2d 1132.

28. Trial court did not err in refusing to strike testimony where no timely objection made. Hogue v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 212 Kan. 339, 344, 510 P.2d 1308.

29. No prejudicial error in admission of evidence; defendant failed to state specific ground of objection. State v. Parker, 213 Kan. 229, 232, 516 P.2d 153.

30. No objection at trial to introduction of specific instances of conduct to show guilt of offense charged; not considered on appeal. State v. Shepherd, 213 Kan. 498, 509, 516 P.2d 945.

31. Admission of exhibits of applications for license in unrelated cases upheld; perjury prosecution. State v. Craig, 215 Kan. 381, 384, 524 P.2d 679.

32. Failure to comply with section noted; conviction of second degree murder upheld. State v. Smith, 216 Kan. 265, 269, 530 P.2d 1215.

33. Section applied; no timely and specific objection made to admission of evidence; conviction under K.S.A. 21-3427 upheld. State v. Estes, 216 Kan. 382, 385, 532 P.2d 1283.

34. Applied; failure to object to in-court identification or to move for suppression of line-up identification. State v. Cameron & Bentley, 216 Kan. 644, 649, 533 P.2d 1255.

35. Applied; conviction of burglary and attempted theft upheld; admission of opinion testimony not error. State v. Stephenson, 217 Kan. 169, 172, 535 P.2d 940.

36. Applied; conviction of theft; failure to make specific finding as to admissibility of testimony as required by K.S.A. 60-435. State v. Rogers, 217 Kan. 462, 467, 537 P.2d 222.

37. Conviction of aggravated robbery upheld; failure of timely objection to admission of evidence. State v. Griffin, 217 Kan. 703, 705, 538 P.2d 720.

38. Applied, reformation of lease upheld; mutual mistake; testimony properly allowed. Schlatter v. Ibarra, 218 Kan. 67, 71, 542 P.2d 710.

39. Applied; admission of evidence regarding prior felony not considered on appeal. State v. Andrews, 218 Kan. 156, 161, 542 P.2d 325.

40. Admission of evidence of prior conviction, under circumstances shown not prejudicial error. State v. Moore, 218 Kan. 450, 452, 454, 455, 543 P.2d 923.

41. Mentioned in denying new trial for juror misconduct; contemporaneous objection rule applied. State v. Buggs, 219 Kan. 203, 208, 547 P.2d 720.

42. Applied; unsolicited evidence relating to prior conviction subject to contemporaneous objection rule. State v. Robinson, 219 Kan. 218, 219, 547 P.2d 335.

43. Reason for rule stated; objection though not timely consistent with underlying rationale under circumstances. State v. Gordon, 219 Kan. 643, 651, 652, 549 P.2d 886.

44. Appellate review precluded, where no objection lodged to lack of specificity. State v. Carter, 220 Kan. 16, 21, 551 P.2d 821.

45. Failure to object to admission of records precluded consideration on appeal. State v. Rives, 220 Kan. 141, 144, 551 P.2d 788.

46. Applied; failure to make timely specific objection to questions concerning prior convictions. State v. Faulkner, 220 Kan. 153, 158, 551 P.2d 1247.

47. Applied; aggravated assault prosecution; failure of timely objection to evidence precluded appellate review. State v. Werkowski, 220 Kan. 648, 651, 556 P.2d 420.

48. By failure to object to evidence, defendant waived right to complain of erroneous introduction. Webber v. Patton, 221 Kan. 79, 81, 558 P.2d 130.

49. No foundation to support conclusion that photographic identification impermissibly suggestive. State v. Wilson, 221 Kan. 92, 93, 94, 558 P.2d 194.

50. Offering of certified copy of journal entry of prior conviction did not constitute error where no objection. State v. Loudermilk, 221 Kan. 157, 161, 557 P.2d 1229.

51. Failure to present issue to trial concerning identification testimony precluded review; conviction of aggravated robbery affirmed. State v. Hornbeak, 221 Kan. 397, 404, 559 P.2d 385.

52. Admission into evidence of written notes made by detective which were duplicative of oral testimony under facts not reversible error. State v. Villa & Villa, 221 Kan. 653, 655, 561 P.2d 428.

53. Applied; failure to comply herewith precludes court on appeal to review alleged error to defendant's constitutional right to remain silent. State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 83, 563 P.2d 1012.

54. Objection not specific or contemporaneous; testimony admissible; not reversible error. State v. Humbolt, 1 Kan. App. 2d 137, 139, 562 P.2d 123.

55. No objection made during trial; admission of evidence upheld. Baker v. Ratzlaff, 1 Kan. App. 2d 285, 288, 564 P.2d 153.

56. Applied; conviction for possession of narcotics substances affirmed. State v. Forsyth, 2 Kan. App. 2d 44, 46, 574 P.2d 241.

57. Contemporaneous objection rule; hearsay testimony not subject to review. State v. Marshall & Brown-Sidorowicz, 2 Kan. App. 2d 182, 202, 577 P.2d 803.

58. Objection not made at trial; beyond scope of review. State v. Jackson, 222 Kan. 424, 429, 430, 565 P.2d 278.

59. Section not relied upon totally in upholding conviction under K.S.A. 21-3513. State v. Dodson, 222 Kan. 519, 523, 565 P.2d 291.

60. Section applied; no objection made at trial; nonreviewable. Iseman v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 222 Kan. 644, 650, 567 P.2d 856.

61. Applied; aggravated robbery prosecution no timely objection to erroneous admission; instructions proper (dissenting opinion). State v. Johnson & Taylor, 223 Kan. 119, 125, 126, 573 P.2d 595.

62. Failure to object pursuant to section precluded review of lineup on appeal. State v. Watie, Heard and Heard, 223 Kan. 337, 344, 574 P.2d 1368.

63. Applied; evidence admissible; robbery prosecution; conviction upheld. State v. Mullins, 223 Kan. 798, 802, 577 P.2d 51.

64. Objections must be contemporaneous; appellate review denied. State v. Phipps, 224 Kan. 158, 578 P.2d 709.

65. No contemporaneous objection to testimony of unendorsed witness; admission allowed; no abuse of discretion. State v. Cook, 225 Kan. 259, 262, 589 P.2d 616.

66. Failure to object to testimony concerning photographic identifications at trial precluded assertion on appeal. State v. Chiles, 226 Kan. 140, 144, 595 P.2d 1130.

67. Cited; objection to the admissibility of evidence raised on a motion for acquittal is timely; conviction affirmed. State v. Parson, 226 Kan. 491, 493, 601 P.2d 680.

68. Failure to object to admission of evidence bars consideration of admissibility on appeal. State v. Whitehead, 226 Kan. 719, 722, 602 P.2d 1263.

69. Cited; impoundment of defendant's vehicle unauthorized and unreasonable; conviction reversed. State v. Urban, 3 Kan. App. 2d 367, 368, 595 P.2d 352.

70. Where no objection made to court receiving statements outside of stipulation, no appeal on this point stands. In re Geisler, 4 Kan. App. 2d 684, 687, 610 P.2d 640.

71. Where rebuttal witness is endorsed on complaint and defendant fails to pursue objection to testimony in motion for new trial, failure to make timely objection bars consideration of admissibility. State v. Dailey, 228 Kan. 566, 570, 618 P.2d 833.

72. No contemporaneous objection precludes appellate review; conviction of murder affirmed. State v. Williams, 228 Kan. 723, 731, 621 P.2d 423.

73. Failure to object to erroneous admission of evidence bars consideration of admissibility on appeal. State v. Patchett, 229 Kan. 163, 167, 621 P.2d 1011.

74. Error cannot be predicated on complaint of misconduct in closing argument where no objection lodged. State v. Rouse, 229 Kan. 600, 607, 629 P.2d 167 (1981).

75. Failure to object at trial to admission of certain evidence relating to computation of damages barred appellants from asserting issue on appeal. English Village Properties, Inc. v. Boettcher & Lieurance Constr. Co., 7 Kan. App. 2d 307, 311, 640 P.2d 1280 (1982).

76. Failure to make contemporaneous objection of admission of evidence; no grounds for reversal. Sieben v. Sieben, 231 Kan. 372, 375, 646 P.2d 1036 (1982).

77. Contemporaneous objection rule applied. State v. Churchill, 231 Kan. 408, 417, 646 P.2d 1049 (1982).

78. In action brought under Federal Employer's Liability Act right of contribution against third-party tortfeasor allowed by K.S.A. 60-258a. Gaulden v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 232 Kan. 205, 217, 654 P.2d 383 (1982).

79. No error in denying plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude evidence of defendant's pregnancy. Reeve v. McBrearety, 8 Kan. App. 2d 419, 421, 660 P.2d 75 (1983).

80. If error was committed in allowing inadmissible answer during testimony, it was not reversible error. Kearney v. Kansas Public Service Co., 233 Kan. 492, 498, 665 P.2d 757 (1983).

81. Specific objection to witness' testimony was not timely raised during trial; claim of error will not be considered on review. State v. Garcia, 233 Kan. 589, 608, 664 P.2d 1343 (1983).

82. Where defendant raised subject of polygraph tests on direct examination, proper area for cross-examination. State v. Crispin, 234 Kan. 104, 108, 109, 671 P.2d 502 (1983).

83. Failure to raise issue of impermissible compulsion to testify at trial not considered for first time on appeal. State v. Handley, 234 Kan. 454, 458, 673 P.2d 1155 (1983).

84. Where figures on blood characteristics considered reliable by scientific community, objection, if raised, would be overruled. State v. Pearson, 234 Kan. 906, 922, 678 P.2d 605 (1984).

85. A point cannot be raised for first time on appeal. State v. McConnell, 9 Kan. App. 2d 688, 692, 688 P.2d 1224 (1984).

86. Defendant may raise on appeal issue objected to by codefendant at trial. State v. Powell, 9 Kan. App. 2d 748, 749, 687 P.2d 1375 (1984).

87. Failure to timely object to questions on cross-examination; issue not considered on appeal. State v. Murdock, 236 Kan. 146, 153, 689 P.2d 814 (1984).

88. Failure to object contemporaneously and eliciting testimony from several witnesses on subject prohibit complaint of admission. Douglas v. Lombardino, 236 Kan. 471, 482, 693 P.2d 1138 (1985).

89. Cited; prior theft (K.S.A. 21-3701) convictions not element of felony theft; no error in admitting evidence absent objection. State v. Hanks, 10 Kan. App. 2d 666, 670, 708 P.2d 991 (1985).

90. Statute not authority for eliciting objectionable testimony a second time on cross-examination to preserve untimely objection. State v. Yarrington, 238 Kan. 141, 145, 708 P.2d 524 (1985).

91. Failure to make timely objection precludes appeal. State v. Bird, 238 Kan. 160, 172, 708 P.2d 946 (1985).

92. Court will not review alleged error in absence of timely objection. State v. O'Neal, 238 Kan. 183, 188, 708 P.2d 206 (1985).

93. Where objections to question not made at trial nor to rephrased question, appellate consideration precluded. Hagedorn v. Stormont-Vail Regional Med. Center, 238 Kan. 691, 702, 715 P.2d 2 (1986).

94. While issues cannot first be raised on appeal, the court will exercise an abundance of caution in reviewing record. State v. McQuillen, 239 Kan. 590, 592, 721 P.2d 740 (1986).

95. If evidence admitted in error had been excluded, verdict would have been the same. State v. Bishop, 240 Kan. 647, 659, 732 P.2d 765 (1987).

96. Statute not controlling on trial judge in determining whether to grant new trial. State v. Burnett, 13 Kan. App. 2d 60, 62, 762 P.2d 192 (1988).

97. Necessity for objection to testimony on basis of K.S.A. 60-455 at trial before heard on appeal noted. State v. Young, 14 Kan. App. 2d 21, 37, 784 P.2d 366 (1989).

98. When motion in limine prior to trial denied, moving party must object again at trial to preserve issue. State v. Trotter, 245 Kan. 657, 659, 783 P.2d 1271 (1989).

99. Defendant's obligation to specify objection to admission of evidence to preserve it for appeal stated. State v. Skelton, 247 Kan. 34, 45, 795 P.2d 349 (1990).

100. Timely objection with specific ground required to preserve question on appeal. State v. Wilson, 247 Kan. 87, 98, 795 P.2d 336 (1990).

101. Erroneous admission of evidence allowed where no objection made at trial; not an issue on appeal. Anderson v. Scheffler, 248 Kan. 736, 742, 811 P.2d 1125 (1991).

102. Where no objection made to particular testimony, it cannot form basis for an issue on appeal. State v. Arrington, 251 Kan. 747, 751, 840 P.2d 477 (1992).

103. Effect of failure to make contemporaneous objection at trial to admissibility of prior crimes evidence examined. State v. Clements, 252 Kan. 86, 89, 843 P.2d 679 (1992).

104. Admissibility of prior convictions evidence and opinion testimony on profile of drug traffickers in civil forfeiture action (K.S.A. 65-4135) examined. State v. 1978 Chevrolet Automobile, 17 Kan. App. 2d 144, 155, 835 P.2d 1376 (1992).

105. Specific grounds for objection must be given at trial to preserve issue for appeal. State v. Cooper, 252 Kan. 340, 349, 845 P.2d 631 (1993).

106. Failure to object at trial, waives any objection to denial of motion in limine. Morgan v. Abay, 252 Kan. 853, 856, 850 P.2d 840 (1993).

107. The words "I object" not necessary; statements to the court sufficiently lodged opposition to introduction of evidence. State v. Bowman, 252 Kan. 883, 887, 850 P.2d 236 (1993).

108. Admissibility of prior crimes evidence examined. State v. Synoracki, 253 Kan. 59, 70, 853 P.2d 24 (1993).

109. Whether clearly erroneous exception should replace contemporaneous objection rule for preserving issues on appeal examined. State v. Johnson, 255 Kan. 252, 254, 874 P.2d 623 (1994).

110. Whether defense lodged continuing objection so as to preserve issue for appeal examined. McKissick v. Frye, 255 Kan. 566, 582, 876 P.2d 1371 (1994).

111. Whether defense opened the door justifying prosecution's comment on defendant's postarrest silence examined. State v. Brinkley, 256 Kan. 808, 820, 888 P.2d 819 (1995).

112. Whether exceptional circumstances required consideration of issue on appeal not raised in trial court examined. State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420, 432, 902 P.2d 982 (1995).

113. Objection by defendant to marital discord evidence does not preserve objection to drug and child abuse evidence for appeal. State v. Cheeks, 258 Kan. 581, 594, 908 P.2d 175 (1995).

114. Trial court did not abuse discretion by admitting evidence of flight by defendant after crime committed. State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 273, 918 P.2d 609 (1996).

115. Record indicated sufficient continuing objection to allow raising admissibility of evidence issue on appeal. Boyle v. Harries, 22 Kan. App. 2d 686, 692, 923 P.2d 504 (1996).

116. Issue not preserved on appeal where no objection to evidence (polygraph results) violating order in limine. State v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 66, 936 P.2d 727 (1997).

117. Admission of defendant's statement and physical samples after suppression denied not properly objected to at trial or raised on appeal. State v. Salcido-Corral, 262 Kan. 392, 404, 940 P.2d 11 (1997).

118. Defense counsel's failure to contemporaneously object to admission of defendant's confession precluded appellate review. State v. Cellier, 263 Kan. 54, 64, 948 P.2d 616 (1997).

119. Party may not object to introduction of evidence at trial and assert different objection on appeal. Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority, 23 Kan. App. 2d 1038, 1055, 940 P.2d 84 (1997).

120. Trial counsel's failure to make timely objection precluded appellate review on evidentiary issue. State v. Johnson, 266 Kan. 322, 336, 970 P.2d 990 (1998).

121. Defendant's failure to testify and timely object to pretrial evidentiary ruling precluded habeas review. Hunt v. Lee, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1214 (1998).

122. Defendant's failure to object and counsel's acquiescence to in camera hearing; arguments that rights violated fall within harmless error rule. State v. Lyons, 266 Kan. 591, 597, 973 P.2d 794 (1999).

123. Claim of erroneous admission of evidence may not be raised on appeal absent objection at trial. State v. Valdez, 266 Kan. 774, 789, 977 P.2d 242 (1999).

124. After pretrial motion to suppress defendant's statement was denied, moving party must object to introduction of statement at trial to preserve appeal on issue of voluntariness. State v. Jones, 267 Kan. 627, 637, 638, 984 P.2d 132 (1999).

125. Admission of evidence may not be raised on appeal absent timely objection at trial. State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 30 P.3d 310 (2001).

126. Judgment shall not be reversed because of erroneous instruction unless objection is on record clearly stating grounds for objection. State v. Percival, 32 Kan. App. 2d 82, 79 P.3d 211 (2003).

127. Court precluded from considering defendant's argument on appeal where defendant objected to evidence on different grounds at trial. State v. Woolverton, 35 Kan. App. 2d 478, 484, 485, 490, 131 P.3d 1253 (2006).

128. In a bench trial, objection to statements after witness had almost completed testifying on direct but before cross-examination was timely. State v. Araujo, 36 Kan. App. 2d 747, 750, 144 P.3d 66 (2006).

129. Contemporaneous objection rule does not apply when the same judge presides at the suppression hearing and at the bench trial with stipulated facts, no witnesses and no additional evidence presented at trial. State v. Bastian, 37 Kan. App. 2d 156, 159, 150 P.2d 912 (2007).

130. Timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence at trial necessary to preserve issue for appeal. State v. Miller, 284 Kan. 682, 694, 704, 708, 163 P.3d 267 (2007).

131. Cited by dissent, K.S.A. 60-404 prohibits reversal for erroneous admission of evidence where no contemporaneous objection. State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 253, 169 P.3d 1128 (2007).

132. Court considers double hearsay and confrontation clause on appeal even though counsel did not object. State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 280, 173 P.3d 612 (2007).

133. Kansas procedure requires confession be challenged prior to or during trial or not at all. State v. Stevens, 285 Kan. 307, 326, 327, 172 P.3d 570 (2007).

134. Prior protection from stalking orders admissible under the circumstances. Wentland v. Uhlarik, 37 Kan. App. 2d 734, 740, 159 P.3d 1035 (2007).

135. When defendant's claim for prosecutorial misconduct implicates right of fair trial, appellate court reviews regardless whether objection made. State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 510, 174 P.3d 407 (2008).

136. Section contains no "contemporaneous objection" requirement, contra K.S.A. 60-404. State v. Holt, 285 Kan. 760, 768, 176 P.3d 239 (2008).

137. When prosecutorial misconduct implicates right to fair trial, appellate court will review even though no objection made. State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370, 386, 388, 184 P.3d 903 (2008).

138. Mentioned; defendant failed to object to the admission of prior consistent statements; no error. State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, 839, 190 P.3d 207 (2008).

139. Cited; party must make timely objection to preserve for appeal on issue relating to admission of evidence. State v. Hughes, 286 Kan. 1010, 1024, 191 P.3d 268 (2008).

140. Cited; no error found about the introduction of evidence of uncharged crimes and other bad acts. State v. Cook, 286 Kan. 1098, 1109, 191 P.3d 294 (2008).

141. Cited; witness testified what murder victim said but no constitutional confrontation objection raised at trial; no reversible error. State v. Anderson, 287 Kan. 325, 340, 197 P.3d 409 (2008).

142. Verdict not to be set aside by reason of an erroneous admission of evidence unless there is objection. State v. Bloomquist, 39 Kan. App. 2d 101, 111, 178 P.3d 42 (2008).

143. Cited; no contemporaneous objection made but defendant preserved issue by two motions to suppress. State v. Moore, 39 Kan. App. 2d 568, 576, 181 P.3d 1258 (2008).

144. Cited in case alleging erroneous admission of evidence, no error found. State v. Watson, 39 Kan. App. 2d 923, 932, 186 P.3d 812 (2008).

145. Cited; defendant failed to object to admission of evidence; precluded from asserting issue for first time on appeal. State v. Watkins, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1, 7, 190 P.3d 266 (2008).

146. Cited; court considers testimony objected to on appeal even though no objection at trial. State v. Reed, 40 Kan. App. 2d 269, 274, 191 P.3d 341 (2008).

147. Cited; to preserve a K.S.A. 60-455 issue for appeal, defendant must object on that ground at trial. State v. Morris, 40 Kan. App. 2d 769, 778, 779, 196 P.3d 422 (2008).

148. Cited; protection from abuse order against defendant, no clear error found in admitting evidence thereof. State v. Jones, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1146, 1157, 201 P.3d 710 (2009).

149. Alleged error in admitting evidence under K.S.A. 60-455 not held to be reversible, no contemporaneous objection. State v. Hoffman, 288 Kan. 100, 200 P.3d 1254 (2009).

150. Defendant did not preserve appellate review of district court admitting unchallenged photos. State v. Decker, 288 Kan. 306, 202 P.3d 669 (2009).

151. Evidentiary claims, including prosecutor's questions and responses thereto, must be preserved by contemporaneous objection for appellate review. State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 204 P.3d 585 (2009).

152. No error in admission of evidence of prior bad acts or photos of victim. State v. Riojas, 288 Kan. 379, 204 P.3d 578 (2009).

153. Appellate court considers defendant's argument even though defendant failed to object at trial. State v. Sharp, 289 Kan. 72, 210 P.3d 590 (2009).

154. Contemporaneous objection rule and case law discussed and applied. State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252, 213 P.3d 728 (2009).

155. Defendant's argument that testimony should have been excluded is rejected; no timely objection. State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 212 P.3d 165 (2009).

156. No reversal for erroneous admission of evidence unless contemporaneous objection appears of record. State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499, 213 P.3d 1052 (2009).

157. K.S.A. 22-3437 held unconstitutional; third and fourth sentence severed from subsection (c). State v. Laturner, 289 Kan. 727, 218 P.3d 23 (2009).

158. Relating to other crime evidence, construed and applied. State v. Blaurock, 41 Kan. App. 2d 178, 201 P.3d 728 (2009).

159. Defendant failed to object to admission of prior bad acts. State v. Herrera, 41 Kan. App. 2d 215, 202 P.3d 68 (2009).

160. Other crimes evidence not objected to at trial, defendant precluded from raising issue on appeal. State v. Deal, 41 Kan. App. 2d 866, 206 P.3d 529 (2009).

161. Alleged constitutional error in state's comments regarding defendant's refusal to consent to search; search upheld, no contemporaneous objection. State v. Preston, 41 Kan. App. 2d 981, 207 P.3d 1081 (2009).

162. Evidence admitted that defendant watched pornographic movies with child; no error found; no objection at trial. State v. Gaona, 41 Kan. App. 2d 1064, 208 P.3d 308 (2009).

163. Party may not object at trial to evidence on one ground and on appeal a different ground. Foster v. Klaumann, 42 Kan. App. 2d 634, 216 P.3d 671 (2009).

164. Defendant preserved the hearsay issue for appeal by raising a timely and specific objection. State v. Kelley, 42 Kan. App. 2d 782, 217 P.3d 56 (2009).

165. Issue of admissibility of the defendant's confession not preserved for appeal. State v. Hollingsworth, 289 Kan. 1250, 221 P.3d 1122 (2009).

166. No abuse of discretion in trial court's denial of a new trial where estate of patient failed to contemporaneously object to testimony. Estate of Mills v. Mangosing, 44 Kan. App. 2d 399, 238 P.3d 293 (2010).

167. Defendant's prior drug use evidence admitted; his challenge to the admissibility not preserved for appeal. State v. Marler, 290 Kan. 119, 223 P.3d 804 (2010).

168. Constitutional issue not properly preserved for appellate review for lack of timely and specific objection. State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 235 P.3d 436 (2010).

169. Defendant precluded from challenging admissibility where there was no timely and specific objection at trial. State v. Hart, 44 Kan. App. 2d 986, 242 P.3d 1230 (2010).

170. Defendant's failure to contemporaneously object to admission of prior crimes evidence precludes appellate review. State v. Nelson, 291 Kan. 475, 243 P.3d 343 (2010).

171. Defendant failed to preserve for appeal due process rights claim by failing to suppress evidence of his show-up identification before trial or object to introduction of such evidence at trial. State v. Calderon-Aparicio, 44 Kan. App. 2d 830, 242 P.3d 1197 (2010).

172. Defendant's confrontation clause claim held not preserved for failure to make a specific and timely objection at trial. State v. Levy, 292 Kan. 379, 253 P.3d 341 (2011).

173. Defendant's filing of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence satisfies the requirements despite his failure to reiterate the basis of his motion during the trial. State v. Kelly, 295 Kan. 587, 285 P.3d 1026 (2012).

174. Contemporaneous objection required to preserve evidentiary claims including questions by prosecutor and responses. State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989, 306 P.3d 244 (2013).

175. Party must make contemporaneous and specific objection to the admission of evidence at the time the evidence is introduced at trial to preserve for appeal. State v. Villa-Vasquez, 49 Kan. App. 2d 421, 310 P.3d 426 (2013).

176. Appellate review is precluded if a party objects to evidence on one ground at trial but then asserts a different ground on appeal. State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494, 499, 332 P.3d 172 (2014).

177. Trial objection must be specific enough that a trial court can fully consider the admissibility of evidence, which can be accomplished by pretrial arguments presented to the trial court. Such an objection must still be raised at trial to preserve the issue on appeal. State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 373, 353 P.3d 1108 (2015).

178. Defendant's failure to object at trial precludes appellate review. State v. Solis, 305 Kan. 55, 64, 378 P.3d 532 (2016).

179. Defendants cannot circumvent the contemporaneous objection requirements by characterizing the appellate issue as prosecutorial error, rather than an evidentiary error. State v. Lowery, 308 Kan. 1183, 1195, 427 P.3d 865 (2018).

180. The contemporaneous objection rule is not satisfied by objecting to the introduction of evidence on one ground at trial and arguing another ground on appeal. State v. Garcia-Garcia, 309 Kan. 801, 441 P.3d 52 (2019).

181. Failure to object to oral testimony regarding purchase of video watch, even though an objection was made when the receipt and order confirmation were introduced, failed to preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Hays, 57 Kan. App. 2d 895, 904, 462 P.3d 1195 (2020).

182. A defendant may not evade the contemporaneous objection requirement demanded by this section by asserting an evidentiary claim on appeal under the guise of prosecutorial error. State v. George, 311 Kan. 693, 701, 466 P.3d 469 (2020).

183. A pretrial objection alone is not timely for purposes of this section because a ruling on an in limine motion is subject to change as the case goes forward. State v. Carter, 312 Kan. 526, 477 P.3d 1004 (2020).

184. Admitting evidence for a limited purpose does not automatically require judge to instruct the jury on such limitation. State v. Alfaro-Valleda, 314 Kan. 526, 548, 502 P.3d 66 (2022).