Even if we regard this statement as inculpatory, independent evidence, namely the stack of towels found in Appellant’s motel room, establishes that the victim went to Room 204 to deliver towels. D. ¶ 21 Appellant next argues that the State’s description of the drywall particles found on a table in Room 204 as “white powder” constituted pr urt abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence three pornographic magazines found in Appellant’s motel room. The State contends that Appellant waived his objection to this evidence because he failed to object to its admission at trial. Because defense counsel filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court denied, Appellant did not waive his objection. See State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 476, 720 P.2d 73, 77 (1986) (<HOLDING>). We therefore turn to the merits of the
holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding that objection on grounds of relevance does not preserve an objection for lack of authentication recognizing that in order to preserve an issue for appeal a defendant must make a contemporaneous objection on the same grounds as those raised on appeal at the time the evidence is elicited at trial holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial