(Fla. 3d DCA 2015). But while we conclude that these arguments were improper, we also conclude that the trial court properly denied Defendants’ motion for mistrial and motion for new trial. We address Comments Number One and Three together, as neither were properly preserved at trial. As to Comment Number One, Defendants are urging, as a basis for reversal, a different objection, than the one they raised at trial. As previously explained, Defendants contend in this' appeal that the argument was a Golden Rule violation; however, the objection actually interposed at trial was “Objection, there’s no evidence of this.” This objection failed to place the trial court on notice of the error that Defendants now assert in this appeal. See Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1095, 1096 (Fla. 1987) (<HOLDING>); Connolly v. State, 172 So.3d 893, 902 (Fla.
holding that an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal