hearsay, Lindsey argues it was error for the trial court to allow Creamer’s notes to be admitted into evidence as an exhibit upon the State’s motion and given to the jury during its deliberations based upon the plain language of Rule 803(5), SCRE. We find this argument is not preserved for our review. After the charge to the jury and closing arguments, the following exchange occurred: The Court: All right. Are the exhibits in order? Both sides agree? What says the State? Ms. Huey: Yes, sir, Your Honor. The Court: And Defense? Mr. Robinson: Yes sir, Your Honor. As evidenced by this colloquy, Lindsey did not object to the admission of Creamer’s notes as an exhibit. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for our review. See State v. Johnson, 324 S.C. 38, 41, 476 S.E.2d 681, 682 (1996) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 393, 440
holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review holding a contem poraneous objection is required at trial to preserve an issue for appellate review holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review