What is the effect of a defendant's failure to specifically object on the basis of authentication?

At the outset, we note that defendant did not object based on authenticity grounds below. Instead, defense counsel only objected based on the rule of completeness. It is well-settled that a defendant's failure to make a timely and specific objection on the ground asserted on appeal makes that ground not cognizable. (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 434.) Defendant's attempt to circumvent this rule by claiming that the doctrine of completeness was inextricably linked to the doctrine of authentication is unavailing. Because defendant failed to specifically object on the basis of authentication

Page 12