It is well-settled law in Alabama that such a timely objection and an adverse ruling from the trial court are necessary to preserve a question for appellate review. Conner v. State, 52 Ala. App. 82, 289 So.2d 650 (Ala.Crim.App. 1973). Similarly, the husband was apprised before trial of the wife's petition to obtain past-due child support.

The court of appeals is without authority to put the trial court to error, in absence of adverse ruling to the defendant, and by granting defendant's motion to exclude along with proper instructions to the jury there was no adverse ruling. Conner v. State, 52 Ala. App. 82, 289 So.2d 650 (1973); Wilson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 137, 101 So. 417 (1924). If any error appeared by admitting the evidence subject to connecting it up, any error in admitting such evidence was cured by subsequently ruling out the testimony followed by instructions to the jury to disregard the evidence. Barnett v. State, Ala., 39 So. 778 (1905); Brand v. State, 13 Ala. App. 390, 69 So. 379 (1915); Pelham v. State, 23 Ala. App. 359, 125 So. 688 (1930).

Matters not objected to in the trial court cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. Goodwin v. State, 46 Ala. App. 149, 239 So.2d 221; Welch v. State, 278 Ala. 177, 176 So.2d 872; Felton v. State, 47 Ala. App. 182, 252 So.2d 108. Objection must be truly raised and an adverse ruling had from the trial judge before a question is presented for appellate review. Conner v. State, 52 Ala. App. 82, 289 So.2d 650. Where an objection to a question is made and sustained after the question is answered, but no motion to exclude the answer is made, no reviewable question is reserved for consideration of appeal. Lee v. State, 47 Ala. App. 548, 258 So.2d 743. CATES, Presiding Judge.

The Alabama cases are clear to the effect that, while the trial judge ex mero motu may reject the tendered witness for mental incompetency, nevertheless, he may rely on the adversary process and swear the witness without error if no objection is raised. Connor v. State, 52 Ala. App. 82, 289 So.2d 650, cert. den. 52 Ala. App. 89, 289 So.2d 656. In a prosecution for assault with intent to murder, permitting the state to have assaulted party disrobe parts of his body to show the jury the scars of injuries inflicted by the defendant, was not error. Patterson v. State, 34 Ala. App. 359, 39 So.2d 709.

COLEMAN, Justice. Petition of Gus Conner, Jr. for Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Conner v. State, 52 Ala. App. 82, 289 So.2d 650. Writ denied.

the duty of the judge, as soon as it is called to his attention, to immediately administer a proper oath to the witness.’); and United States v. Odom, 736 F.2d 104, 115 (4th Cir. 1984). More specifically, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, ‘just as a defendant may waive any impediment to a witness's capacity to testify by failing to object, Conner v. State, 52 Ala. App. 82, 87, 289 So. 2d 650 (1973), cert. denied, 292 Ala. 716, 289 So. 2d 656 (1974), so may he waive the failure to place a witness under oath by the failure to object.’ Merton, 500 So. 2d at 1306 ; Green v. State, 586 So. 2d 54, 55 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (‘By failing to object, the appellant waived the issue of any alleged failure to place the witnesses under oath.

”); and United States v. Odom, 736 F.2d 104, 115 (4th Cir.1984). More specifically, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, “just as a defendant may waive any impediment to a witness's capacity to testify by failing to object, Conner v. State, 52 Ala.App. 82, 87, 289 So.2d 650 (1973), cert. denied, 292 Ala. 716, 289 So.2d 656 (1974), so may he waive the failure to place a witness under oath by the failure to object.” Merton, 500 So.2d at 1306; Green v. State, 586 So.2d 54, 55 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (“By failing to object, the appellant waived the issue of any alleged failure to place the witnesses under oath.

Merton v. State, 500 So. 2d 1301 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986); Saxton v. State, 389 So. 2d 541, 543 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980) ("If a witness is allowed to give evidence before the jury without first being lawfully sworn, it is the duty of the judge, as soon as it is called to his attention, to immediately administer a proper oath to the witness."); and United States v. Odom, 736 F.2d 104, 115 (4th Cir. 1984). More specifically, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, "just as a defendant may waive any impediment to a witness's capacity to testify by failing to object,Conner v. State, 52 Ala. App. 82, 87, 289 So. 2d (1973), cert. denied, 292 Ala. 716, 289 So. 2d 656 (1974), so may he waive the failure to place a witness under oath by the failure to object." Merton, 500 So. 2d at 1306; Green v. State, 586 So. 2d 54, 55 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) ("[b]y failing to object, the appellant waived the issue of any alleged failure to place the witnesses under oath.

See Rule 32(a)(3)(D), Ala.R.Civ.P. Through his deposition, Watson herself established Dr. Barrington's completion of his internship, his participation in the orthopedic residency program, his presence during the surgery, and his opinion, based both on personal knowledge and by hypothetical question, that the standard of care applicable to Watson's treatment was not violated. In short, Watson, having treated Dr. Barrington as an expert witness during the trial, cannot now make his competence an issue on appeal. Merton v. State, 500 So.2d 1301 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986), overruled on other grounds, Hawkins v. State, 549 So.2d 552 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989); Conner v. State, 52 Ala. App. 82, 289 So.2d 650 (Ala.Crim.App. 1973), cert. denied, 292 Ala. 716, 289 So.2d 656 (1974); Greathouse v. State, 47 Ala. App. 71, 250 So.2d 609 (Ala.Crim.App. 1971). The remaining issue is whether the trial court committed reversible error in its oral charge to the jury by limiting the jury's consideration of the evidence.

However, no objection or motion, prior to or during trial, was made by defense counsel based on Tammy Zimmerman's incapacity to testify, because she was unsworn or receiving psychiatric care. Furthermore, during cross-examination of Zimmerman, defense counsel thoroughly questioned her about receiving psychiatric care and about her being on medication when she testified. "[J]ust as a defendant may waive any impediment to a witness's capacity to testify by failing to object, Conner v. State, 52 Ala. App. 82, 87, 289 So.2d 650 (1973), cert. denied, 292 Ala. 716, 289 So.2d 656 (1974), so may he waive the failure to place a witness under oath by the failure to object."Merton v. State, 500 So.2d 1301, 1306 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986).