Okay. So you don’t have that material with you here today. Berquist: No, sir. Defendant’s Attorney: That’s all I have, Your Honor, Thank You. ¶ 42. Illinois Central failed to properly object to Berquist’s testimony regarding reasons why the major railroads were amending their safety rules and to Berquist’s reference to statistical information from the FRA booklet. Thus, we find that Illinois Central is now procedurally barred from arguing on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing this evidence to be admitted. Cotton v. State, 675 So.2d 308, 314 (Miss.1996) (finding that when objection is made during bench conference, the complaining party must preserve the record for appeal to avoid being procedurally barred); Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 294 (Miss.1992) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 43. Procedural bar aside, our rules of
holding the absence of a timely ob jection causes defendant to be procedurally barred from asserting the alleged error on appeal holding that a prosecutorialmisconduct claim was procedurally barred when raised for the first time on appeal holding that claims raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from consideration in a rule 3850 motion holding that defendant was procedurally barred from raising issue on appeal where issue was listed as grounds in motion for new trial holding that a caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal