Is a defendant permitted to argue that the trial court erred by allowing introduction of testimonial details of prior convictions?

The People contend that defendant should not be permitted to argue that the trial court erred by allowing introduction of testimonial details of the prior convictions because he asked the trial court only to disallow introduction of documentary evidence. (See Evid. Code, 353.) Defendant argues that once the trial court ruled that the documentary evidence could come in, there was "no point" in moving to exclude testimony about the convictions. In other words, he claims that any further objection would have been futile. (See People v. Anderson (2001) 25 Cal.4th 543, 587 ["Counsel is not required to proffer futile objections."].) We note that defendant's written motion requested exclusion of "evidence about the underlying facts" of the prior convictions; it did not seek exclusion of only documentary evidence. Under the circumstances, we find defendant did not waive the issue whether the trial court properly admitted testimonial details of the prior convictions. However, we find that the argument lacks merit.