Analysis Additionally, Lindsey argues the trial court erred in basing its ruling to admit the written statement into evidence, at least in part, on its own comparison of Lindsey’s handwriting exemplars. We find this issue is not preserved for our review. A contemporaneous objection is typically required to preserve issues for appellate review. State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58, 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) (citing Johnson, 324 S.C. at 41, 476 S.E.2d at 682) (noting a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate re view). Here, Lindsey not only failed to object when the trial court questioned if there were any previous exemplars of Lindsey’s signature, but affirmatively placed two sentencing sheets into evidence that contained his signature. Moreove 45 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we find this issue is abandoned on
holding argument abandoned when defendant failed to cite any authority in specific support of his assertion that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial holding an argument waived for failure to cite authority holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified holding that a defendant is barred from contending on appeal that the trial court erred in denying a mistrial motion when he acquiesced in the courts decision to give curative instructions and did not then renew his own motion for mistrial or join in his codefendants renewal of the motion holding that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority in support of an argument in his appellate brief