Varela, 1999-NMSC-045, ¶¶ 25-26, 128 N.M. 454, 993 P.2d 1280. “In order to preserve an issue for appeal, ‘it is essential that the ground or grounds of the objection or motion be made with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the trial court to the claimed error or errors, and that a ruling thereon then be invoked.’ ” Id. ¶25 (quoting State v. Lopez, 84 N.M. 805, 809, 508 P.2d 1292, 1296 (1973)). There is nothing in the record to indicate that Defendant alerted the trial court to his allegations that Judge Thrower’s testimony took an element of fact away from the jury. Finally, Defendant concedes that he failed to object to the State’s closing argument. As such, this argument is not properly before us. See State v. Lucero, 118 N.M. 696, 701, 884 P.2d 1175, 1180 (Ct. App.1994) (<HOLDING>). In addition, we note that during Defendant’s
recognizing that the defenses response argument at closing can ameliorate the improper prosecutorial comments holding that argument regarding victim of prior offense was improper holding the prosecutors argument if it was there they can bring it to you was not an improper jury argument holding on habeas review that counsels failure to object to improper argument at trial did not prejudice petitioner where other evidence supported a guilty verdict and the jury was told closing argument was not evidence holding that a defendant bears the burden of objecting to an allegedly improper closing argument at the time the improper argument is made