People v. Jenkins, 190 Ill.App.3d 115, 137, 137 Ill.Dec. 225, 545 N.E.2d 986 (1989).        The State cites People v. McClendon, 197 Ill.App.3d 472, 143 Ill.Dec. 856, 554 N.E.2d 791 (1990), in support of its contention that the failure to instruct the jury in this case with the definition of robbery was not plain error. In McClendon, the defendant was convicted of armed violence based on his being armed while committing the felony offense of aggravated battery.

The jury was not provided with the instruction for "kidnapping."¶ 45 We find the cases of People v. McClendon , 197 Ill. App. 3d 472, 143 Ill.Dec. 856, 554 N.E.2d 791 (1990), and Edwards to be instructive. In McClendon , the defendant was convicted of armed violence based upon aggravated battery.

In a criminal case, both a trial objection and a written posttrial motion raising the issue are necessary to preserve an error for review. People v. McClendon, 197 Ill. App. 3d 472, 482, 554 N.E.2d 791, 797 (1990). Moreover, "[a] defendant may not change or add to the basis for his objection on review."

People v. Cuadrado, 214 Ill. 2d 79, 89 (2005). In People v. McClendon, 197 Ill. App. 3d 472, 481 (1990), this court found that the admission of a witness's videotaped statement, which defendant was not present for, did not violate defendant's right to a face-to-face confrontation with the witness and thus did not amount to plain error. Here, as in McClendon, the victim was unavailable to testify at trial, his deposition was taken under oath, and he was subject to cross-examination by defense counsel.

People v. Cuadrado, 214 Ill.2d 79, 89, 291 Ill.Dec. 638, 824 N.E.2d 214 (2005). In People v. McClendon, 197 Ill.App.3d 472, 481, 143 Ill.Dec. 856, 554 N.E.2d 791 (1990), this court found that the admission of a witness's videotaped statement, which defendant was not present for, did not violate defendant's right to a face-to-face confrontation with the witness and thus did not amount to plain error. Here, as in McClendon, the victim was unavailable to testify at trial, his deposition was taken under oath, and he was subject to cross-examination by defense counsel.

On review, a defendant cannot change or add to the basis for his objection. People v. McClendon, 197 Ill.App.3d 472, 482, 143 Ill.Dec. 856, 554 N.E.2d 791 (1990). A specific objection at trial eliminates all grounds not specified.

The rationale generally stated is that that requirement applies only to the waiver of constitutional rights essential to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial and not to the procedural protections granted by the IAD — the primary purpose of which is to facilitate a defendant's rehabilitation in prison by avoiding multiple disruptions caused when charges are outstanding against defendant in another jurisdiction. See, e.g., Webb v. Keohane, 804 F.2d 413, 414-15 (7th Cir. 1986); Brown v. Wolff, 706 F.2d 902, 907 (9th Cir. 1983); People v. McClendon, 224 Cal.App.3d 1208, 274 Cal. Rptr. 502, 506 (1990); and Drescher v. Superior Court of the State of California, 218 Cal.App.3d 1140, 267 Cal.Rptr. 661 (1990). In this context, most courts have held that voluntariness requires no more than a showing of conduct by the defendant or his attorney inconsistent with the preservation of such rights.

3(d) because Webster was not present at the deposition and did not waive his right to be present, and therefore we find it was error to admit this testimony. See, e.g., People v. McClendon, 197 Ill. App.3d 472, 143 Ill.Dec. 856, 863, 554 N.E.2d 791, 798 (1990), citing Alvarado as an example of a state court that has "found a defendant must waive his presence at the deposition prior to its admission." Because we find that admission of the deposition violated Webster's right to be present under rule 15.

On review, a defendant cannot change or add to the basis of his objection in the appellate court. People v. McClendon, 197 Ill.App.3d 472, 482 (1990). A specific objection at trial eliminates all grounds not specified.

On review, a defendant cannot change or add to the basis of his objection in the appellate court. People v. McClendon, 197 Ill.App.3d 472, 482 (1990). A specific objection at trial eliminates all grounds not specified.