Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of Rule 404(b). Instead, appellant’s counsel focused on the fact that not redacting the “child molester” statement would require appellant to “open the door” to the DHS investigation so that the jury was properly informed about that allegation. Without a specific objection and a ruling, that issue is not preserved for appeal and we need not address it. Moreover, appellant never made a specific relevancy objection. Rather, appellant urged that the portion of the statement including the comment had “nothing to do with this case” and “no evidentiary purpose.” This court will not presume that these ambiguous statements preserve a specific relevancy objection, lest we presume such statements preserve all “evidentiary” objections. See Vanesch v. State, 343 Ark. 381, 37 S.W.3d 196 (2001) (<HOLDING>). |17V. Officer Testimony For his final point 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that objection on grounds of relevance does not preserve an objection for lack of authentication (B) 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 (C) holding that objection by defense counsel that he did not see the relevance of the evidence was not a proper relevancy objection (D) holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection (E) holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully
Output (English): 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