The failure to present the matter to the trial court at the proper time constitutes a waiver of objectionableness of the voluntary statement of a witness. Parrott v. People, 144 Colo. 587, 357 P.2d 634. No objection to the statements regarding Line's admissions on the ground that they were nonresponsive was made, not did Lane move the trial court to order such statements stricken and request it to admonish the jury to disregard them.

As we have said, defendant's motion for a new trial attacked the trial court's action in allowing the evidence relating to other burglaries to be introduced. It made no claim of error in the procedure employed by the court at the time the evidence was received or thereafter. Under the circumstances, we will not review the alleged claims of error relating to the prior burglaries. Parrott v. People, 144 Colo. 587, 357 P.2d 634. Rule 37 (b), Colo. R.C.P. Moreover, considering the record here, it is quite clear that this is not a case where the conditions precedent to review prescribed by Rule 37 (b), Colo. R.C.P., should be overlooked for the purpose of noting plain error or defects affecting substantial rights. See Shier v People, 116 Colo. 353, 181 P.2d 366.

Under these circumstances the alleged error will not even be considered by us, inasmuch as no objection thereto was raised at the time of trial, nor was it later assigned as error in the motion for new trial. It is axiomatic that objections of this type may not be raised for the first time in this Court except under the most unusual of circumstances, which suffice it to say are not to be found in the instant case. See Davis v. People, 112 Colo. 452, 150 P.2d 67 and Parrott v. People, 144 Colo. 587, 357 P.2d 634. It should be specifically noted that present counsel for Phelps did not participate in the original trial of the matter.

There is no merit to this argument. Parrott v. People, 144 Colo. 587, 357 P.2d 634; Shier v. People, 116 Colo. 353, 181 P.2d 366; Bayless v. U.S., 200 F.2d 113. Defendant relies for reversal on the following incident disclosed by the record:

In Thompson v. People, 139 Colo. 15, 336 P.2d 93, and McRae v. People, 131 Colo. 305, 281 P.2d 153, the accused voluntarily made statements similar to that attributed to the defendant in the instant case, and it was held that no reversible error was committed by admission of those statements in evidence. See also Parrott v. People, 144 Colo. 587, 357 P.2d 634. The guilt of defendant was overwhelmingly established by competent evidence. As a further ground for reversal it is argued that a new trial should be ordered for the reason that on the morning of the day when the jury was accepted and sworn, a Denver newspaper had published a statement relating to the trial, to the effect that "the ex-convict's trial began Tuesday in District Judge Steele's court."

An accused may not withhold his objections awaiting the outcome of his trial and after conviction complain of matters regarding which a timely objection would have allowed the trial court to take corrective action. Parrott v. People, 144 Colo. 587, 357 P.2d 634 (1960). In the absence of a contemporaneous objection, an allegedly erroneous instruction may form the basis for reversal only if it constitutes plain error.