Opinion ID: 1852042
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Irrelevant Statements

Text: New Plan argues that the trial court erred in overruling the objection of New Plan to the admission of a statement made by a police officer to Morgan. New Plan argues that the testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial. At trial, the following occurred: Q. Did the police do anything to get your property back? A. They advised me to get a lawyer. [Defense counsel]: We would object. Move to strike the answer as nonresponsive and also hearsay. When the grounds for an objection are stated, this impliedly waives all other grounds for the objection to the evidence; and the objecting party cannot predicate error upon a ground not stated in the trial court, but raised for the first time on appeal. Nichols v. Southeast Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 576 So.2d 660, 662 (Ala.1991) (citations omitted). Because New Plan specifically objected to the testimony on the ground of hearsay, we do not address whether the testimony was irrelevant or prejudicial. Id.