testimony was not relevant because she did not have first-hand knowledge of the relationship between Caleb and Misty, nor of the circumstances of Sydney’s birth or Misty’s death as Tadych was not present. This objection at best preserved the issue of the logical relevance of Tadych’s testimony — that is the -extent to which it tended to prove or disprove an issue in dispute. The objection did not preserve a claim of error that Tadych’s testimony was legally irrelevant because it was more prejudicial than probative in its effect, or that Ta-dych’s testimony was improper expert testimony. “[A]n objection to evidence must be sufficiently clear and definite so that the trial court will understand the reason for the objection.” Blount v. Peipers, 864 S.W.2d 392, 393 (Mo.App.E.D.1993) (<HOLDING>). Though all of the claimed bases of error in
holding that a claim was not preserved for review where the defense failed to object on the specific grounds advanced on appeal holding that an issue was not preserved for appellate review because appellants trial objection does not comport with the issue he raised on appeal holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review holding that objection on the grounds of irrelevancy without explanation for why the evidence was irrelevant preserved nothing for appellate review holding that failure to object to prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify preserved nothing for appellate review