of being considered a suspect in this crime, as well as his fear that unfavorable testimony might affect his probationary status. Id. at 311, 94 S.Ct. 1105. However, unlike the defendant in Davis who explained how the witness’s juvenile adjudication would be used to impeach the witness, Defendant failed to offer any such explanation to the trial court. A party is “limited to the specific grounds argued to the trial court and cannot assert new bases for admissibility for the first time on appeal.” Taylor v. State, 710 N.E.2d 921, 923 (Ind.1999). Because Defendant did not propose the evidence on the basis that it tended to demonstrate that Moody was testifying in exchange for favorable treatment by the State, he has waived this claim. See Ogle v. State, 698 N.E.2d 1146, 1151 (Ind.1998) (<HOLDING>). B We now turn to Defendant’s second argument
recognizing that a defendant may not raise one ground for objection at trial and argue a different ground on appeal holding that the defendant may not state one ground at trial and another on appeal holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal holding party may not argue one ground at trial and another on appeal where appellant did not object to testimony at trial on the grounds raised on appeal that it was improper character evidence but objected only on the basis of relevancy issue was not preserved for review holding an issue not preserved when one ground is raised to the trial court and another ground is raised on appeal