examination, in response to a question from the prosecutor asking her whether the two men in her garage “could” have been Billings and Ross, Quick answered, “Yes.” Billings and Ross both objected, and the trial court sustained the objection on the ground that the testimony was mere speculation. The court instructed the jury to disregard Quick’s answer. Billings then moved for a mistrial, but Ross did not make his own mistrial motion or join in Billings’s motion. The court denied Billings’s motion. Ross asserts that Billings’s motion for a mistrial was sufficient to preserve the issue so that Ross can challenge the trial court’s denial of the motion on appeal. That is incorrect; Ross forfeited his right to appeal that ruling. See Mathis v. State, 291 Ga. 268, 271 (728 SE2d 661) (2012) (<HOLDING>); Stokes v. State, 281 Ga. 875, 877 (644 SE2d
holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that  was not raised on appeal holding that failure to object does not preclude raising the issue on appeal where erroneous evidence is offered in violation of an order in limine holding that a defendants failure to object or join in a codefendants objection to an issue bars the defendant from raising the issue on appeal holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal