Is a defendant's failure to make a specific objection to or to exclude or strike evidence on the basis of erroneous admission of evidence cognizable?

Section 353 provides in pertinent part, "A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless: [] (a) There appears of record an objection to or a motion to exclude or to strike the evidence that was timely made and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of the objection or motion . . . ." (Italics added.) In accord with this statute, our high court has consistently held that a " ' "defendant's failure to make a timely and specific objection" on the ground asserted on appeal makes that ground not cognizable. [Citation.]' " (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 433-434, italics added.) Accordingly, plaintiffs' third argument is precluded from appellate review where the record does not disclose a specific objection on this ground and plaintiffs' appellate briefing does not contend any such objection was raised.