We question whether trial counsel's requests for an interpreter constitute objections and whether the trial court's responses constitute rulings such that this claim is preserved for appellate review. See Ellis v. State, 287 Ga. 170, 172 (2) (695 S.E.2d 35) (2010) ("It is the rule in Georgia that objections should be made with sufficient specificity for the trial court to identify the precise basis. It is not important in what format the allegation is cast so long as it is clear to the court the specific error alleged that the court may have the opportunity to correct [it].").

and there is no reasonable probability that the jury's being informed that Marshall had acted in a similar manner in a prior incident contributed to the jury's verdict. See Ellis v. State, 287 Ga. 170, 173(2), 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010); Moore v. State, 242 Ga.App. 249, 251(1)(a), 529 S.E.2d 381 (2000). Faced with this overwhelming evidence, trial counsel conceded the commission of the crime of giving a false statement to a law enforcement officer before the jury.

The State contends that Ellis acquiesced in this ruling by failing to object to it. But “once the trial court has addressed a party's motion or objection and has issued a ruling, the party adversely affected need not then further object or ‘except’ to the trial court's ruling in order to preserve the issue for appeal.” Ellis v. State, 287 Ga. 170, 172(2), 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63, 69(4), 694 S.E.2d 316 (2010); Cowan v. State, 156 Ga.App. 650, 651, 275 S.E.2d 665 (1980), overruled on other grounds, Legare v. State, 256 Ga. 302, 304(1), n. 2, 348 S.E.2d 881 (1986).

(Citation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Brown v. State, 367 Ga. App. 114, 115, 885 S.E.2d 87 (2023); see also Ellis v. State, 287 Ga. 170, 172 (2), 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010) ("[O]bjections should be made with sufficient specificity for the trial court to identify the precise basis.") (citation and punctuation omitted).

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ellis v. State , 287 Ga. 170, 172 (2), 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010) ; Arnold v. State , 301 Ga. App. 714, 716 (2), 688 S.E.2d 656 (2009) ("In order to preserve an objection upon a specific ground for appeal, the objection must be made at trial upon that specific ground.") (citation and punctuation omitted).

See McDaniel v. State, 263 Ga. App. 625, 629 (2), 588 S.E.2d 812 (2003).See Ellis v. State, 287 Ga. 170, 172 (2), 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010). (b) Harvey next argues that the admission of the razor blades and marijuana was error because the sergeant's lack of personal knowledge regarding the recovery of the items from Harvey's person meant that a sufficient foundation for their admission was not established.

Accordingly, those issues are not preserved for appeal.”), cited in Jenkins v. State, 284 Ga. 642, 644(1), n. 1, 670 S.E.2d 425 (2008); Dye v. State, 205 Ga.App. 781(1), 423 S.E.2d 713 (1992); Buckler v. DeKalb County Board of Comm., 299 Ga.App. 465, 469(3), 683 S.E.2d 22 (2009) (determining that appellants waived any alleged constitutional error by failing to elicit a ruling by the trial court on constitutional issue). See Hatley, supra;Bunn, supra;Walker, supra; see also Johnson, supra (explaining the “distinct difference” between Confrontation Clause and other challenges to hearsay); Battles v. State, 290 Ga. 226, 232(5), 719 S.E.2d 423 (2011) (explaining that, generally, “[a]lthough a party does not waive an error by failing to object to admission of evidence after a motion in limine is denied, this rule cannot be invoked to preserve a different, [even] if perhaps related, error”) (citations omitted; emphasis supplied); Ellis v. State, 287 Ga. 170, 172(2), 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010) (explaining that “[o]nce the trial court has addressed a party's motion or objection and has issued a ruling, the party adversely affected need not then further object or except to the trial court's ruling in order to preserve the issue for appeal”) (emphasis supplied).Sosebee, supra at 299, 357 S.E.2d 562.

Accordingly, those issues are not preserved for appeal."), cited in Jenkins v. State, 284 Ga. 642, 644(1), n. 1, 670 S.E.2d 425 (2008) ; Dye v. State, 205 Ga.App. 781(1), 423 S.E.2d 713 (1992) ; Buckler v. DeKalb County Board of Comm., 299 Ga.App. 465, 469(3), 683 S.E.2d 22 (2009) (determining that appellants waived any alleged constitutional error by failing to elicit a ruling by the trial court on constitutional issue). See Hatley, supra; Bunn, supra; Walker, supra; see also Johnson, supra (explaining the "distinct difference" between Confrontation Clause and other challenges to hearsay); Battles v. State, 290 Ga. 226, 232(5), 719 S.E.2d 423 (2011) (explaining that, generally, "[a]lthough a party does not waive an error by failing to object to admission of evidence after a motion in limine is denied, this rule cannot be invoked to preserve a different, [even] if perhaps related, error") (citations omitted; emphasis supplied); Ellis v. State, 287 Ga. 170, 172(2), 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010) (explaining that "[o]nce the trial court has addressed a party's motion or objection and has issued a ruling, the party adversely affected need not then further object or except to the trial court's ruling in order to preserve the issue for appeal") (punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied).Sosebee, supra at 299, 357 S.E.2d 562.

Because Mitchell's trial counsel objected on the very grounds that Mitchell now contends trial counsel failed to assert—and because Mitchell obtained a ruling from the trial court on that objection—Mitchell "cannot establish that his trial counsel was deficient" as to this claim. Ellis v. State , 287 Ga. 170, 172, 695 S.E.2d 35 (2010) (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Franklin v. State , 306 Ga. 872, 876 n.10, 834 S.E.2d 53 (2019) (ineffectiveness claim based on alleged failure to make particular objection meritless because record showed counsel did make that objection); Slaton v. State , 303 Ga. 651, 654, 814 S.E.2d 344 (2018) (same). (b) Brady Violation.