that Section 31.03 primarily addresses the person getting the goods, and Section 31.16 targets the schemer. Additionally, the State raises a waiver contention, arguing that the pari materia argument was never made before the referee or the district court below. With this contention we must agree. To preserve error, a party must make a timely and specific objection. TEX.R.APP.P. 33.1(a); Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). The complaining party must also obtain an adverse ruling on the objection. Ramirez v. State, 815 S.W.2d 636, 643 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Specifically with reference to the pari materia issue, the Court of Criminal Appeals has focused on the adequacy and timing of the objection made at trial. Azeez v. State, 248 S.W.3d 182, 193-94 (Tex.Crim.App.2008)(<HOLDING>). The same is true for a number of court of
holding that objection made at directed verdict stage and in motion for new trial were timely holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict holding a directed verdict motion stating specific grounds is a prerequisite for a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict holding that a party must have made a directed verdict motion at trial on the specific issue which is the basis of the jnov holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage