Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): objection made by his counsel at a later point during Dr. Barron’s testimony, in which he repeated the previously asserted objection to exhibits 1 and 2 and then added an objection on the basis of hearsay. What is fatal to respondent’s argument, however, is the fact that, at the earlier point in time when counsel for DCYF had moved for the admission of exhibits 1 and 2, the only objection articulated by respondent’s counsel was that Dr. Barron was “here to testify.” That objection was certainly not sufficiently focused to direct the trial justice’s attention to the hearsay evidence rule, see Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d at 30; and the context did not make it apparent that such was the “specific ground” of objection. See Rule 103(a)(1); cf. State v. Baptista, 894 A.2d 911, 914 n. 2 (R.I.2006) (<HOLDING>). In addition, since exhibits 1 and 2 had 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial (B) holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered (C) holding that the defendants motion in limine which sought to exclude the evidence to which the defendant later made a general objection at trial adequately provided the context for determining the specific ground of objection (D) holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court (E) holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection
Output (English): holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial