With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". PER CURIAM. AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for consideration of whether the trial court improperly permitted newly-discovered evidence regarding the alleged contents of a telephone conversation between Petitioner and his wife to be introduced at trial over Petitioner’s objection, as the Superior Court erroneously found the issue to be waived because Petitioner did not also additionally request a mistrial. See Commonwealth v. Maloney, 469 Pa. 342, 365 A.2d 1237, 1242 (1976)

A: holding that objection was timely even though objection was not made until after question was answered
B: holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully
C: holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection
D: holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection
D.