What is the rule that a party must submit an objection at a later trial, even though the objection had been overruled at a previous trial?

[70 Cal.App.4th 783] The rule makes sense. In a somewhat analogous situation, the rule is that a party must object at a later trial, though the objection had been overruled at an earlier trial: "A defendant may not acquiesce in the admission of possibly excludable evidence and then claim on appeal that rulings made in a prior proceeding render objection unnecessary. In the absence of an objection there was no error in admitting the evidence and no issue cognizable on appeal as to the propriety of its admission." (People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 624, 268 Cal.Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127.) So, too, here.

Defendant claims we must address the issues on the merits because the failure of defense counsel to tender these objections constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Whether to object to testimony and on what grounds are generally tactical matters. (People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 158, 158 Cal.Rptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587.) Unlike an appellate attorney, who has the luxury of leisurely picking through the

Page 897

[70 Cal.App.4th 784]