that they were holding from a prior job.” N.T., 8/6/02, at 96-97. The second police officer testified that, after apprehending Guilford, he patted him down for safety, and then two uniformed officers “came and met us with two complainants ... or victims .... ” Id. at 130-32. Guilford contends that the above testimony constituted impermissible evidence of other crimes. ¶ 11 The Commonwealth argues that Guilford did not preserve this issue for appeal because he failed to object in a timely manner to the above-cited testimony. In both of the cited instances, Guilford did not immediately object to the testimony cited above. Thus, we conclude that Guilford did not properly preserve his objections to this testimony. See Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 434 Pa.Super. 14, 641 A.2d 1176, 1184 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Smith, 487 Pa. 626, 410 A.2d
holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial holding that a party fails to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal not only by failing to make a specific objection but also by making the wrong specific objection holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding timely and sufficiently specific objection is required to preserve error recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review