misconduct because the reference erroneously led jurors to believe the substance was cocaine or methamphetamine. This argument is meritless. In his opening statement, the prosecutor did mention white powder, but described it in his next breath as drywall and gypsum powder. At trial, the prosecution again mentioned the presence of white powder dust on a table, but testimony indicated that the corner of the table covered with the powder appeared to match a hole in Room 204’s drywall. Hence, the State did not mislead the jury into believing the white powder was something other than drywall. Moreover, even if the State did somehow mislead the jury, Appellant waived his objection because he failed to make it at trial. See State v. Kemp, 185 Ariz. 52, 62, 912 P.2d 1281, 1291 (1996) (<HOLDING>). E. ¶ 22 Appellant also argues that the trial
holding that instances of prosecutorial misconduct are waived if not objected to at trial holding that defendant must have clearly objected at trial to the matter he is raising on appeal holding that it is error for court of appeals to reverse trial courts ruling that had not been objected to at the trial court level holding that a trial justices claimed errors that are not specifically objected to at trial    are not preserved for consideration by this court on appeal holding that claims based on grounds not objected to at trial cannot be considered on appeal