With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". may only be laid with testimony at trial from the declarant (the person who made the out-of-court statement). In fact, Polite’s counsel never pointed to any deficiency in the foundation laid by the State for admission of the statement. It is well-settled that to preserve an issue for appellate review, “litigants, including criminal defendants, must ... 1) mak[e] a timely contemporaneous objection in the trial court; 2) stat[e] the legal grounds for that objection; and 3) rais[e] the specific argument in the appellate court that was asserted as the legal ground for the objection or motion made in the trial court.” Sanchez v. State, 909 So.2d 981, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (citing Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935 (Fla.2005)). Applying this standard, it is clear that this issue was 003) (<HOLDING>). We disagree with these cases because they are

A: holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen
B: holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex
C: holding that a defendant waives right to object to a hearsay statement on confrontation grounds when he or she offers the statement
D: holding tape recorded statement given to police shortly after criminal incident was inadmissible under section 908035 when witness did not remember its contents and did not testify that it correctly reflected her knowledge or that she tried to be truthful at the time she made the statement
D.