and the defendant is a central, often dispositive issue in these “he said, she said” trials, the rules of evidence should be used sparingly to exclude relevant, otherwise admissible evidence that might bear upon the credibility of either party. Id. We review the trial court’s decision to bar the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. State, 36 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). To preserve error, including a constitutional error, for appellate review, the appellant must make a timely, specific objection to the trial court and obtain a ruling on the objection. Tex.R.App. P. 33.1; Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 431 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); see Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). The point of error on appeal must correspond
holding that defendant waived his confrontation rights by threatening witness not to testify holding errors based on the constitutional rights to confrontation and due process may be waived by failure to object at trial holding claimed errors waived for failure to timely object holding that failure to object to trial court about violations of federal and state due process waived appellate review of those claims holding complaint that sentence violated equal protection was waived because of failure to object at trial