on Confrontation Clause grounds. Defendant did object on constitutional and due process grounds at several points during the redaction hearing, but did not specifically object on Confrontation Clause grounds. “In order to preserve a question for appellate review,” the defendant must object “stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context.” Id. (emphasis added). “A general objection, when overruled, is ordinarily not adequate unless the evidence, considered as a whole, makes it clear that there is no purpose to be served from admitting the evidence.” State v. Jones, 342 N.C. 523, 535, 467 S.E.2d 12, 20 (1996); see also, State v. Perkins, 154 N.C. App. 148, 151-52, 571 S.E.2d 645, 647-48 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Defendant did not specifically identify the
holding that while general objections are discouraged they are valid to preserve error when the ground of the objection is apparent holding that when defendants only timely filed objections to expert report were that two statements were speculative defendant waived all other objections holding that two general objections were insufficient to properly preserve the issue holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review holding that because generic objections do not afford a sentencing court sufficient notice such objections are inadequate to preserve specific claims of sentencing error