clear up any false impressions” that Walton had introduced by his testimony indicating that a conspiracy to rob Barragan existed or that a gun would be used. On appeal, Nickerson challenges the trial court’s ruling as an impermissible infringement of Nickerson’s Sixth Amendment right to- confront witnesses against him. In the trial court, however, Nickerson argued that the evidence was relevant. He did not raise a Confrontation Clause objection. To complain of a Confrontation Clause objection on appeal, a party must object in the trial court to the ruling disallowing that testimony. Wñght v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526, 536 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). A relevance objection is insufficient to preserve a Confrontation Clause challenge. See Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 179 & n.29 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (<HOLDING>) (citing Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 535
holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge holding that a proffer of evidence to established a witnesss bias and motive to lie did not preserve a confrontation clause argument because a defendant must specifically articulate that the confrontation clause demands admission of proffered evidence to preserve error on this ground holding appellate court erred in reversing conviction on confrontation clause grounds because appellant did not clearly articulate to trial court that confrontation clause demanded admission of evidence in question holding that in reviewing confrontation clause challenge appellate courts must first determine whether the confrontation clause is implicated holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue