Is a defendant's failure to raise a confrontation objection to the admissibility of evidence at trial invalid?

Respondent contends that defendant has forfeited the issue by failing to raise a confrontation objection in the trial court. A challenge to the admissibility of evidence is generally not cognizable on appeal in the absence of a specific and timely objection in the trial court on the ground urged on appeal. (Evid. Code, 353.) This includes a claim of error under the Sixth Amendment. (People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691, 730-732.)

Defendant counters that the failure to object should be excused as futile, as the trial took place prior to the publication of Sanchez. A failure to object may be excused where governing law at the time of trial "'"afforded scant grounds for objection,"'" and where requiring an objection "'"'would place an unreasonable burden on defendants to anticipate unforeseen changes in the law,'"'" such as when the new rule is "'flatly inconsistent with the prior governing precedent'" and issued well after trial concluded. (People v. Rangel, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1215.)