jury and that the ■ evidence exceeded the permissible limits established by caselaw on “spark-of-life evidence.” We disagree. In general, rulings on eviden-tiary matters are within the discretion of the district court. State v. Amos, 658 N.W.2d 201, 203 (Minn.2003). If the district court abuses its discretion, this court must determine whether, had the evidence been admitted, the jury would have reached the same verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Post, 512 N.W.2d 99, 102 (Minn.1994). The state argues that appellant’s failure to object to Ms. Thomson’s testimony regarding Thomson and her testimony regarding sequestration precludes appeal on these issues. Failure to object to the admission of evidence generally con stitutes waiver of the right to appeal on that basis. State v. (<HOLDING>); State v. Graham, 371 N.W.2d 204, 207
holding that 45second video of the victim playing basketball during the emotional testimony of victims mother did not have potential for creating undue prejudice and arousing emotions of jurors that outweighed the probative value of the evidence holding in a criminal context that the probative value of evidence of other crimes is not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice where the court will give a limiting jury charge holding that witness testimony about prior drug purchases from defendant was highly probative of brookins guilt and was not outweighed by any danger of undue prejudice holding that the probative value of contested evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice where any potential unfair prejudice was cured by a limiting jury instruction recognizing potential for prejudice arising from undue emphasis on a tape recording by repetitive playing