How does the general rule of forfeiture apply to claims based on statutory violations?

To preserve an issue about the admissibility of evidence for appellate review, a defendant must make a timely and specific objection in the trial court on the same ground he asserts on appeal. (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 433-434.) " 'To require this is simply a matter of fairness and justice, in order that cases may be tried on their merits. Had attention been called directly in the court below to the particular objection which it is now claimed the general objection of appellant presented, that court would have had a concrete legal proposition to pass on, and counsel for plaintiff would have been advised directly what the particular complaint against the question was. . . . Trial

Page 6

judges are not supposed to have the numerous, varied, and complex rules governing the admissibility of evidence so completely in mind and of such ready application that under an omnivagant objection to a question they can apply with legal accuracy some particular principle of law which the objection does not specifically present.' " (Ibid.) The general rule of forfeiture applies to claims based on statutory violations. (People v. Romero (2008) 44 Cal.4th 386, 411.) "The reason for this rule is to allow errors to be corrected by the trial court and to prevent gamesmanship by the defense." (Ibid.)