expressly stated the federal constitution as the basis for his objection, was sufficient to preserve an appellate challenge based on state constitutional grounds. Id. at 536-37. The Heidelberg court held that presenting a claim based solely on federal grounds is not sufficient to put the trial court on notice of claims based on state grounds, unless the state ground is apparent fi’om the context. Id. at 538. The Heidelberg court considered the following factors in determining whether the defendant’s ground for objection was apparent: (1) the context and substance of the question to which the defendant objected, i.e. whethe .-Amarillo 1999, pet. ref d) (stating that defendant did not preserve state constitutional challenge to his right to confront witnesses against him bec im.App.1985) (<HOLDING>); Coleman v. State, 644 S.W.2d 116, 119
holding that defendants general objection to states specific questions regarding defendants failure to appear before grand jury was sufficient to put trial court on notice of objection based on defendants constitutional right to remain silent holding that appellate court could not consider objection to testimony when defendant objected at trial on different grounds holding that error was preserved when defendant objected to question regarding defendant was under arrest immediately following question about postarrest event sufficient to put trial court on notice of appellants state constitutional grounds for objection holding an issue was preserved in part because the trial court immediately understood the basis of the objection holding that although the defendant had preserved his objection to the constitutionality of a mental state requirement he had not preserved another constitutional objection