to the introduction of the evidence, specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court.” Goodson v. State, 540 So.2d 789, 791 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Craig v. State, 719 So.2d 274 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). “When a timely objection at the time of the admission of the evidence is not made, the issue is not preserved for this Court’s review.” Ziglar v. State, 629 So.2d 43, 47 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). “ ‘An objection to a question, made after an answer is given, is not timely and will not preserve the issue for review.’” Roper v. State, 695 So.2d 244, 246 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), quoting Scott v. State, 624 So.2d 230, 234 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). See also Ex parte Crymes, 630 So.2d 125, 127 (Ala.1993) (<HOLDING>). Here, Pope did not challenge the legality of
holding that objection was timely even though objection was not made until after question was answered holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection holding that a proper objection must be made after the question calling for objectionable testimony is asked and before the ivitness answers  holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding that motion for mistrial was untimely where defendant waited two or three minutes after the objectionable testimony occurred to make objection