err in denying the motion to dismiss. Below, Howard objected on hearsay grounds to the Bode Technology DNA analyst’s testimony that she witnessed her colleague initial the envelope in her presence once it was resealed. Howard now argues the trial court erred when it overruled this objection. As the State correctly points out, this was not hearsay testimony — the analyst testified to an event she personally witnessed. During voir dire the trial judge referenced television shows like CSI: Miami and asked whether the jury understood that, in real life, DNA evidence is not processed in a day. Because Howard made no objection to the comments below, Howard’s assertion that the comments constituted reversible error may not be raised on appeal. Thomas v. State, 645 So.2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Howard argues the trial court failed
holding that plain error is the appropriate standard of review when a defendant objects to a prosecutors comments at trial does not move for a mistrial and then on appeal argues that the comments deprived him of a fair trial holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue recognizing that trial courts have discretion in regulating comments to be made in closing arguments holding that in order to raise prejudicial comments of trial court on appeal defendant must object to comments when made and move for a mistrial holding ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to object to prosecutors comments cognizable in postconviction motion since court unable to review on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve error