This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO , 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. No. A-1-CA-35007 4 MIROSLAVA GIRARD, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Fernando R. Macias, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellee 13 D. Eric Hannum 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 FRENCH, Judge. 182 {1} We are called upon to review two evidentiary matters. After conviction by jury 1 trial, Defendant Miroslava Girard appeal s her conviction on one count of failing to 2 disclose facts to obtain public assistance (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978, 3 Section 30-40-1(F) (2006). Defendant was sentenced to a conditional discharge and 4 placed on probation for five years. On appeal , Defendant argues that the district court 5 (1) erred in allowing the State’s witness to give conclusions and opinion testimony; 6 and (2) abused its discretion in cautioning defense counsel to be careful about making 7 objections, thereby preempting defense c ounsel’s objections to hearsay testimony 8 from the State’s witness. 9 {2} We hold that Defendant failed to properly preserve her argument on the first 10 issue and that the district court did not err in regard to the second issue, and therefore 11 affirm. As the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we will not recite them 12 in detail here but reference them where pertinent below. 13 Defendant Failed to Preserve Her Rule701 NMRA Argument for Review Under 14 Rule 12-216(A) NMRA (1993, recompiled and amended as Rule 12-321 NMRA, 15 effective Dec. 31, 2016) 16 {3} At trial, Defendant interrupted the testimony of the State’s witness about 17 discrepancies she noticed in Defendant’s file about the identity of the father of 18 Defendant’s child with a speaking objection. In response, the district court stated: 19 “Rules of evidence, [defense counsel]. What is the objection under the rules of 203 evidence? You don’t give speaking objections here.” At the bench conference that 1 followed, the district court inquired as toDefendant’s specific evidentiary objection, 2 whereupon defense counsel stated his speci fic objection was: “Argumentative. [The 3 State’s witness] is making [an] argument. She’s making . . . a closing argument, she’s 4 not answering a question. She’s saying th ese are the conclusions I’m drawing from 5 things.” In overruling the objection, the district court ruled that the State’s witness 6 testimony was not argumentative. 7 {4} Rule 12-321(A) provides that in order “[t] o preserve an issue for review, it must 8 appear that a ruling or decision by the trial court was fairly invoked.” An appellant 9 seeking review of a court’s evidentiary ruling must have alerted the district court to 10 the specific basis of their objection, thus allowing the court to comprehend and 11 analyze the issue and make an intelligent ruli ng thereon. “In order to preserve an issue 12 for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial 13 court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” 14 State v. Montoya , 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45, 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks 15 and citation omitted). 16 {5} Defendant’s objection did not specifically apprise the district court of the issue 17 Defendant raises on appeal. Defendant now argues that the district court abused its 184 discretion in allowing the State’s witness to give conclusions and “unfounded opinion 1 testimony” in violation of Rule 11-701. 2 {6} Rule 11-701 provides for lay witness tes timony in the form of an opinion that 3 is: (1) limited to the witness’s perception; (2) helpful to an understanding of the 4 witness’s testimony; and (3) not based on sc ientific, technical, or other specialized 5 knowledge within the scope of Rule 11-702 NMRA. SeeRule 11-701. Defendant 6 directs this Court to seven pages of transcript citation in her brief in chief, purporting 7 to evidence the district court’s error in admission of testimony about discrepancies the 8 witness identified in Defendant ’s records. However, our review of these transcript 9 cites indicates that Defendant either did not object, objected to the testimony as 10 argumentative—as discussed in the coll oquy above—or as speculation, hearsay, or 11 cumulative evidence. None of the objections were made pursuant to Rule 11-701 and 12 therefore could not have alerted the “trial c ourt [to] the nature of the claimed error and 13 invoke[d] an intelligent ruling thereon.” Montoya , 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 (internal 14 quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the issue argued on appeal is not the 15 issue that was presented to the district c ourt, we conclude th at Defendant failed to 16 preserve her evidentiary arguments under Rule 11-701 and we will not review them 17 on appeal. See State v. Salazar , 2006-NMCA-066, ¶ 9, 139 N.M. 603, 136 P.3d 1013 185 (“We do not address issues thatwere not raised below. The trial court must be alerted 1 to the problem and given an opportunity to resolve it.”). 2 The District Court Did Not Err by Admitti ng Hearsay or by Cautioning Defense 3 Counsel About Future Objections 4 {7} Defendant argues that the district court’s admission of hearsay and its 5 “admonition” to counsel to “[b]e careful about making objections because I’ll overrule 6 them[,]” constituted abuses of discreti on requiring reversal of her conviction. 7 {8} “Admission of evidence is within the s ound discretion of the trial court and the 8 trial court’s determination w ill not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of that 9 discretion.” State v. Aguayo , 1992-NMCA-044, ¶ 17, 114 N.M. 124, 835 P.2d 840. 10 “An abuse of discretion occurs when the ru ling is clearly against the logic and effect 11 of the facts and circumstances of the case. [The appellate courts ] cannot say the trial 12 court abused its discretion by its ruling unless [the ruling] can [be] 13 characterize[d] . . . as clearly untenable or not justified by reason.” State v. Rojo , 14 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation marks and 15 citation omitted). 16 {9} We cannot conclude that the district c ourt abused its discretion, and we agree 17 with the State that Defendant has taken th e district court’s evidentiary rulings and 18 statements out of context. The linchpin of our analysis is based on the context of 196 Defendant’s objections and the district c ourt’s rulings and comments, which are set 1 forth below. 2 {10} During direct examination of the State’ s witness, Defendant twice objected on 3 hearsay grounds, both sustained by the districtcourt. Upon Defendant’s third hearsay 4 objection, the district court held a benc h conference. The district court was then 5 alerted to the fact that the information s ought to be elicited wa s contained “[o]n page 6 150 of Exhibit 1[,]” which had already been “[d]isclosed and . . . preadmitted.” 7 Defense counsel then stated, “at some point I’m going to be objecting because all this 8 is cumulative evidence.” In overruling the third hearsay obj ection, and analyzing the 9 sequencing of witnesses and exhibits, the district court ruled that it would “allow some 10 flexibility in order for the State to put their case on. Be careful about making 11 objections because I’ll overrule them.” Th e record, therefore, illustrates that the 12 district court was cautioning against anobjection to cumulative evidence that 13 Defendant had not yet made, rather than other valid objections. Examination of the 14 transcript also reveals that the district court did not preemptively curtail Defendant’s 15 counsel from making objections. 16 {11} We conclude that Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s 17 ruling was clearly against the logic and eff ect of the facts and circumstances of the 18 case or unjustified by reason, and emphasize th at there is a presumption of correctness 197 in the rulings or decisions of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the 1 burden of showing error. See State v. Aragon , 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393, 2 981 P.2d 1211. 3 CONCLUSION 4 {12} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Defendant’s conviction. 5

{13} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

______________________________ 7 STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge 8

WE CONCUR: 9

___________________________________ 10 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge 11

___________________________________ 12 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 13