Is a timely objection required to preserve a claim of error for failing to comply with a statutory procedural requirement?

This case presents a good example of why a timely objection is generally required to preserve a claim of error for failing to comply with a nonjurisdictional statutory procedural requirement. (People v. Valdez (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1633, 1638.) Often, "`"`the explanation is simply that it is unfair to the trial judge and to the adverse party to take advantage of an error on appeal when it could easily have been corrected at the trial.'" [Citation.] "`The purpose of the general doctrine of [forfeiture] is to encourage a defendant to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected or avoided and a fair trial had . . . .'" [Citation.] "`No procedural principle is more familiar . . . than that a constitutional right,' or a right of any other sort, `may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.' [Citations.]"'" (Id. at pp. 1638-1639, italics omitted; see also People v. Mendez (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1773, 1781 [forfeiture or estoppel may preclude a party from challenging a court's act in excess of jurisdiction].)