was timely and specifically preserved). {34} To the extent Defendant’s argument implies fundamental or plain error, we find no basis under either theory. First, there was no error. Defense counsel objected and moved to strike the testimony which the district court sustained. Defendant requested nothing further from the district court and thus obtained the relief requested. See In re Crystal L., 2002-NMCA-063, ¶ 19, 132 N.M. 349, 48 P.3d 87 (stating that closing statements by the State, while improper, did not constitute reversible error without evidence of substantial prejudice where defense counsel objected and the district court sustained the objection, but the defense did not request curative instruction or other remedy); State v. Woodward, 121 N.M. 1, 5, 908 P.2d, 231, 235 (1995) (<HOLDING>). {35} Further, there was more than substantial
holding that a district court has discretion to caution a witness about selfincrimination so long as the court does not actively encourage the witness not to testify or badgerf a witness into remaining silent holding that the defendant waived objection to hearsay statement by asking the district court to caution witness and having failed to request other relief relief sought was obtained holding that the defendants objection did not suggest that the objected to statement was hearsay and therefore concluding that the defendant waived appellate review of the hearsay argument holding because the district court refused to grant plaintiff reinstatement or any other injunctive relief the damage award was neither incidental to nor intertwined with any other relief holding that defendant who introduced hearsay statement waived objection to admission of another part of same statement