in precluding him from calling as a witness the assistant public defender, who represented Guilford at the December 7, 2001 hearing, to testify that Cesar appeared to be under the influence of drugs on that date. However, as we have previously stated, such evidence is not permitted. See Koehler, 737 A.2d at 239-40 (citations omitted). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the proffered evidence. ¶ 10 Guilford next asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of another robbery with which he was charged. The evidence to which Guilford objects occurred during the testimony of two police officers. The first officer testified that, while he was speaking to Cesar after the robbery, he received a radio message that other officers “had a m 7 (1980) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 12 However, even if Guilford had properly
holding an objection untimely when raised after the testimony has been heard such that the issue would not be considered on appeal holding that a proper objection must be made after the question calling for objectionable testimony is asked and before the ivitness answers  holding that the defendants objection was untimely when he waited until the end of the prosecutors closing argument to raise it holding that motion for mistrial was untimely where defendant waited two or three minutes after the objectionable testimony occurred to make objection holding that notice was untimely where the attorney waited to establish the lien until approximately two months after the case concluded