not required to proffer that evidence at trial. See Reed v. State, 353 Md. 628, 637-38, 728 A.2d 195, 200-01 (1999) (“ '[W]hen the effect of the ruling [on a motion in limine] is to exclude the evidence, and the trial judge intends that ruling to 'be the final word on the matter, a contemporaneous objection made at the time of the ruling ordinarily preserves the issue for appellate review.'... When motions in limine to exclude evidence are granted, normally no further objection is required to preserve the issue for appellate review.,! ”) (first alteration in original) (quoting Hickman v. State, 76 Md.App. 111, 117, 543 A.2d 870, 873 (1988)) (citing Simmons v. State, 313 Md. 33, 37-38, 542 A.2d 1258, 1259-60 (1988)). See also Prout v. State, 311 Md. 348, 356, 535 A.2d 445, 449 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Hence, contrary to Respondent's argument,
recognizing that the value of brady evidence must be evaluated in light of the other evidence admitted at trial holding that the law presumes that the jury will follow the courts instructions holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding that when a trial judge determines that questionable evidence will not be admitted the proponent of the evidence is left with nothing to do at trial but follow the courts instructions