appellate review process, we issued our opinion in Robinson, holding that A.R.S. § 13-1416 unconstitutionally infringed upon this court’s rule-making authority and undermined “fundamental judicial and constitutional values and processes” required in the truth-finding function of criminal trials. Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 197, 735 P.2d at 807. Robinson is applicable to the present case since it was pending review when the Robinson decision was announced. State v. Nunez, 135 Ariz. 257, 258, 660 P.2d 858, 859 (1983). However, the defense counsel never objected to the hearsay statements offered pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1416. We have held that the rule of waiver is equally applicable even when the error may be of constitutional magnitude. State v. Magallanes, 110 Ariz. 235, 517 P.2d 505 (1973) (<HOLDING>); State v. Holder, 155 Ariz. 83, 745 P.2d 141
holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal holding that appellant who properly filed an objection in accordance with the notice he received from the trial court had standing to appeal holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that states failure to afford defendant proper notice in accordance with procedural due process in a probation revocation could not be raised on appeal absent an objection in the trial court