With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". objection made by his counsel at a later point during Dr. Barron’s testimony, in which he repeated the previously asserted objection to exhibits 1 and 2 and then added an objection on the basis of hearsay. What is fatal to respondent’s argument, however, is the fact that, at the earlier point in time when counsel for DCYF had moved for the admission of exhibits 1 and 2, the only objection articulated by respondent’s counsel was that Dr. Barron was “here to testify.” That objection was certainly not sufficiently focused to direct the trial justice’s attention to the hearsay evidence rule, see Diefenderfer, 970 A.2d at 30; and the context did not make it apparent that such was the “specific ground” of objection. See Rule 103(a)(1); cf. State v. Baptista, 894 A.2d 911, 914 n. 2 (R.I.2006) (<HOLDING>). In addition, since exhibits 1 and 2 had

A: holding that the defendants motion in limine which sought to exclude the evidence to which the defendant later made a general objection at trial adequately provided the context for determining the specific ground of objection
B: holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial
C: holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered
D: 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
A.