With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". p. 454-55. Because this second forensic pathologist testified that Davies's death was a homicide wholly apart from, and without relying on, the statistical evidence that Prewitt now challenges, any error in the admission of Dr. Kohl's testimony was at most, harmless error. III. Erroncously Admitted Blood Spatter Evidence Prewitt next contends that expert testimony relating to blood spatter patterns was erroneously admitted at trial. Specifically, she maintains that the evidence was "irrelevant, did not assist the factfinder, confused the jury, and had no probative value." Appellant's Br. p. 24. We note that Prewitt agrees that she did not object to this testimony at trial. As a result, the issue is waived. See Haycraft v. State, 760 N.E.2d 203, 211-12 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied (<HOLDING>). We similarly conclude that this issue does

A: holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal
B: holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
C: holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial
D: 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
D.