trial court may give a requested jury instruction on an aggravating circumstance if the evidence adduced at trial is legally sufficient to support a finding of that aggravating circumstance.”). Conahan’s claim that the jury should not have been instructed regarding murder committed during the course of a kidnapping is procedurally barred. Because Conahan failed to object to the jury instruction, he did not properly preserve it for appellate review. Thus, this Court will not review its merits. See Bell v. State, 699 So.2d 674, 678 (Fla.1997) (concluding that the defendant’s issue relative to the trial court’s error in instructing the jury on the CCP aggravating circumstance was procedurally barred because he failed to preserve the issue); Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96, 98 (Fla.1996) (<HOLDING>). C. Prosecutorial Comments In his fourth
holding that defendants who do not object to jury instructions at trial are subject to a plain error standard of review on appeal holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed holding that defendants issue regarding the constitutionality of two jury instructions was not preserved because defendant failed to object with specificity in the trial court below holding because nothing in the constitution requires the meaning of particular terms in a jury instruction to be specifically defined the defendants unpreserved claim regarding the jury instructions did not constitute constitutional error and thus was not properly preserved for appellate review holding that an issue not properly preserved below in the district court is generally waived