Leak should not have been admitted, because, they say, 1) its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value and 2) it was inadmissible under the general exclusionary rule. However, Tinsley and Tuscaloosa County did not object before the trial court based on these grounds. Because Tinsley and Tuscaloosa County failed to state these grounds for their objection, the alleged error was not preserved for appeal. Rule 103, Ala. R. Evid. The trial record shows that Tinsley and Tuscaloosa County based their objection to the testimony on a relevancy argument. They do not argue on appeal that the trial court erred in ruling that the evidence was relevant. Therefore, they have not presented any basis for appellate review on this issue. See Landreth v. State, 600 So.2d 440 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
holding that summary judgment must be affirmed where multiple grounds are asserted and the appellant does not attack all grounds on appeal holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal