With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1, 1998 and “apply to all proceedings on or after that date.” See Court Order on Final Approval of Revisions to the Texas Rules of Evidence, printed in 61 Tex. Bar J. 373 (Apr.1998). The rules of evidence are procedural provisions. Buffington v. State, 801 S.W.2d 151, 154 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1990, pet. ref'd). Because current Rule 606(b) was in effect at the time of the defendant’s new trial hearing, it was applicable as a procedural provision and the trial court was bound to follow it during the hearing. Id.; Freeman, 786 S.W.2d at 58 (rules of evidence govern case even though offense committed before their enactment); Medrano v. State, 768 S.W.2d 502, 504 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 1989 pet. ref'd) (same); see also Hart v. State, 15 S.W.3d 117, 124 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). The defendant attempts to circumvent such a

A: 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
B: holding that defendants general objection to states specific questions regarding defendants failure to appear before grand jury was sufficient to put trial court on notice of objection based on defendants constitutional right to remain silent
C: holding that trial court correctly sustained states rule 606b objection even though alleged misconduct occurred before rules amendment
D: holding that error was preserved by running objection because of defendants immediate objection to states specific question in combination with trial courts comments showing that it understood nature of defendants objection
C.