Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to the introduction of the Bible based on relevance. The dissent claims that this objection “was clearly valid.” Dissenting op. at 640 n. 15. We agree with that contention as far as it goes. However, the issue Anthony argues before us now (prosecutorial misconduct) is not “the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection ... below.” Harrell, 894 So.2d at 940. At trial, defense counsel never argued that the prosecutor was engaging in misconduct. Therefore, it was not preserved for appeal. Furthermore, the issue also was not preserved because defense counsel did not obtain a ruling on the motion at trial. As we have held, the failure to obtain a ruling on a motion or objection fails to preserve an issue for appeal. Armstrong v. State, 642 So.2d 730, 740 (Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>) (citing Richardson v. State, 437 So.2d 1091, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendants pretrial request for a magnetic resonance imaging mri test was procedurally barred because the trial judge reserved ruling on the issue and never issued a ruling (B) recognizing that ruling of one trial judge does not preclude another trial judge reconsidering interlocutory ruling (C) holding if an appellant conceded trial courts ruling was not prejudicial he could not assert on appeal the ruling denied him a fair trial (D) holding that a trial courts evidentiary ruling on a pretrial motion is not sufficient to preserve the issue    for appeal unless a defendant renews the objection during trial (E) holding that appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion
Output (English): holding that a trial courts evidentiary ruling on a pretrial motion is not sufficient to preserve the issue    for appeal unless a defendant renews the objection during trial