v. State, 766 So.2d 208, 211 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (emphasis added) (citing Goodson v. State, 540 So.2d 789, 791 (Ala.Crim.App.1988)). The Alabama Supreme Court has stated that “[mjatters not objected to at trial cannot be considered for the first time on appeal, since review on appeal applies only to rulings by the trial court. Cooper v. State, 331 So.2d 752 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 331 So.2d 759 (Ala.1976).” Adams v. State, 585 So.2d 161, 164 (Ala.1991). However, in Ex parte Maxwell, 439 So.2d 715 (Ala.1983), and the line of cases that follow it, the Alabama Supreme Court has carved out an exception for instances in which the prosecution fails to introduce into evidence at trial a municipal ordinance a defendant is charged with violating. See Ex parte Maxwell, 439 So.2d at 717 (<HOLDING>). See also Ex parte Hall, 843 So.2d 746, 749
holding that a defendants general objection that the city of mobile failed to make out a prima facie case was sufficient to preserve for appellate review the issue of the citys failure to prove the ordinance holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review