What is the consequence of appellant failing to object to the admission of the challenged testimony?

Appellant forfeited his objection to the admission of the challenged testimony by failing to object in the trial court. (See People v. Redd, supra, 48 Cal.4th at 729.) We reject appellant's reliance on narrow exceptions to the general rule requiring an objection in the trial court, which apply only

Page 40

where an objection would have been futile, or the error was so prejudicial that it violated the defendant's federal constitutional rights. (See People v. Abbaszadeh (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 642, 649-650 ["In our view the error [in instructing prospective jurors to lie about harboring racial prejudice] is so shocking, affecting the structural integrity of the trial, that it . . . not only affected the substantial rights of this defendant but, if the conviction were upheld, would tend to impair the integrity of the judiciary"]; id. at 648-649 [objection would have been futile in light of trial court's repeated refusal to acknowledge identical error in separate case].) For the reasons stated below, we also reject appellant's alternative contention that his counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to object.