and detachment from her family. She became increasingly more angry and had some — Defense Counsel: Your Honor, Pm going to object. The Court: I overrule your objection. Go ahead. Roseborough: Thank you. Had some very violent outbursts toward people in her family, her dad and her brothers. And she became more withdrawn. She had a lot of feelings of loneliness and detachment. She became so clinically depressed that I was concerned about her and referred her to a psychiatrist. The State argues Berry’s counsel did not address vouching, bolstering, or Kromah in her objection regarding Rosebor-ough’s testimony as to trauma symptoms and PTSD. Therefore, the State contends Berry’s argument on appeal is not preserved. See State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134, 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Berry maintains the specific ground of his
holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding an issue not preserved when one ground is raised to the trial court and another ground is raised 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 that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion