Finally, defendant claims a violation of his Confrontation Clause rights under Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ¶ 19. First we address defendant’s claim of error under the Rules of Evidence. As noted earlier, our review of a trial court’s evidentiary rulings is, in general, deferential, and reversal is warranted only upon an abuse of discretion. Jackson, 2008 VT 71, ¶ 9. This case presents a different problem because defense counsel voluntarily agreed to not recall T.S. and to play the recorded statements instead. By agreeing to admission of certain evidence, a party waives his right to review of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. See State v. Poutre, 154 Vt. 531, 535, 581 A.2d 731, 734 (1990) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Laprade, 2008 VT 83, ¶ 11,
holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial recognizing the right to counsel on appeal holding that the defendant waived the right to challenge a suppression ruling on appeal holding that when defense counsel withdrew an objection to admission of evidence the defendant waived his right to a review of the courts ruling on appeal holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court