of cases deal with the sufficiency of imprecise objections, but because one must look to the context of each case in order to see if the ground of the objection was apparent, we must look at each situation individually as it arises.” Heidelberg v. State, 144 S.W.3d 535, 538 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). Regardless, those cases still provide instructive guidance. Id. To determine whether appellant’s general objection of “cruel and unusual punishment” in his motion for new trial preserved his general objection based on federal and state constitutional and statutory grounds, we consider other cases considering the sufficiency of imprecise objections. In Heidelberg v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals addressed whether a defendant’s running objection at trial, whi -Austin 1982, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Here, appellant made no objection at his
holding that evidence of a defendants invocation of the right to remain silent ordinarily is not admissible at the defendants criminal trial holding that a defendants general objection to his psrs recommendation of a sentence increase did not serve as an objection to specific factual allegations in the psr holding that the defendants motion in limine which sought to exclude the evidence to which the defendant later made a general objection at trial adequately provided the context for determining the specific ground of objection holding that defendants general objection to states specific questions regarding defendants failure to appear before grand jury was sufficient to put trial court on notice of objection based on defendants constitutional right to remain silent holding that error was preserved by running objection because of defendants immediate objection to states specific question in combination with trial courts comments showing that it understood nature of defendants objection