How have the courts treated a motion to exclude or exclude statements made by defendant on the grounds that they were elicited in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights?

Yet, in this case, defendant did not object to the admission of his statements to Torres on the ground that they were elicited in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Defendant did not include the statements to Torres in his written motion to exclude or in his argument on the motion. Instead, he later argued only that the statements should be excluded under Evidence Code section 352 because they were cumulative and unduly prejudicial. This general evidentiary objection was not sufficient to preserve the Constitutional objection defendant now raises on appeal because it did not provide the trial court the "opportunity to resolve material factual disputes and make necessary factual findings." (People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 482.) The argument is waived.