Does a defense counsel object to the adequacy of the foundation under California Evidence Code section 1271 of the Business Records Act?

Defense counsel did not object to the adequacy of the foundation. "[B]efore an appellate court will give consideration to an objection to evidence, the specific ground for its exclusion must have been clearly stated to the trial court. (Evid. Code, 353, subd. (a).) This is particularly true where, as in the instant case, the objection easily could have been cured by the party offering the testimony if the specific reason for the objection had been stated to the trial court. [Citation.] The only apparent defect in the foundation required by Evidence Code section 1271 [business records exception to the hearsay rule] was in the failure of Putnam to testify as to the mode and time or preparation of the bank statements. This oversight obviously could have been remedied if defendant's counsel had objected on that specific ground; his failure to do so should prevent his asserting this ground on appeal." (People v. Dorsey (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 953, 960, emphasis in original.) In our case, if defense counsel had objected to a defect in the foundation rather than that the prosecutor's questions were leading, the oversight could easily have been remedied. The claim is waived. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the I.D. sheet into evidence.