Pinkins's Patronage of Bars Pinkins claims that fundamental error occurred when the trial court admitted evidence at trial that Pinkins patrohized certain strip bars and associated with the dancers who worked at the clubs. Specifically, he maintains that the admission of this testimony was error because it violated the provisions of Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b), in that it amounted to uncharged misconduct. Therefore, Pinkins contends that the evidence unduly prejudiced him and resulted in the denial of due process and the right to a fair trial. In addressing this contention, we note, and Pinkins concedes, that he did not object to this evidence at trial. In such circumstances, the argument presented on appeal is typically waived. See Goodwin v. State, 783 N.E.2d 686, 687 (Ind.2003) (<HOLDING>). However, in an effort to avoid waiver,
holding that a claim was not preserved for review where the defense failed to object on the specific grounds advanced on appeal holding party may not argue one ground at trial and another on appeal where appellant did not object to testimony at trial on the grounds raised on appeal that it was improper character evidence but objected only on the basis of relevancy issue was not preserved for review holding that failure to object to prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify preserved nothing for appellate review holding that the failure to object at trial customarily means that a party has not preserved the claim on appeal holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court