motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. ¶ 18. During cross-examination, the prosecution attempted to elicit testimony from Butler that he previously had broken into Whalen’s house before the incident at issue. Defense counsel failed to object to the introduction of such testimony. In fact, in cross-examining Whalen, defense counsel attempted to develop its theory of defense by eliciting testimony from Whalen that he never saw Butler break on any occasion. ¶ 19. Again, we find that a defendant’s failure to contemporaneously object to the admission of evidence at trial, as required by Mississippi Rule of Evidence 103, effectively waives the issue on appeal. See Busick v. State, 906 So.2d 846, 861-62(¶ 44) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 20. In light of governing case law on this
holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal holding that error in the admission of evidence at trial is waived on appeal when the complaining party submits evidence to substantially the same effect holding that defendant forfeits right to have issue considered on appeal when he fails to object to misconduct at trial holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial