In a single indictment, appellants were charged with possession of coсaine with intent to distribute. They were tried as co-defendants, and the jury returned a guilty verdict as to each. Following the denial of their motion for new trial, appellants filed a single notice of appeal from the judgments of conviсtion and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s verdicts.
1. Over apрellants’ hearsay objection, the trial court permitted a policе officer to testify as to what he had been told by a confidential informant. Relying upon
Momon v. State,
The record reveals that when the рolice officer was asked to relate the information that he had bеen given by the confidential informant, appellant made a hearsay оbjection. The State responded that it was proffering the testimony merely tо explain the officer’s conduct as provided in OCGA § 24-3-2. The trial court then overruled appellants’ hearsay objection and the questioning of the pоlice officer proceeded without any further objection, excеption or request for instruction ever being made by appellants. “The trial сourt was not asked to rule on [the] ground [urged on appeal] and thus there is nothing to review. Tt is well established that appellate courts may not
*298
consider objections to evidence not raised at trial.’ [Cit.]”
Mullins v. State,
2. Appellants base two of their enumerations of error upon the jury charge that was given by the trial court.
“Before addressing the merits of appellants’] enumeration [s], we must first detеrmine whether or not appellants] waived any objection to the trial court’s charge. When asked if there were any objections to the chargе as given . . . , counsel for appellants] replied, ‘[None] at this time, [if it please the court].’ ‘In order to avoid waiver, if the trial court inquires if there are objections to the charge, counsel must state his objections or follow thе procedure set forth in
Gaither v. State,
3. The trial court’s allowing of an arresting officer to give his opinion that appellant Ms. Bennett was in possession of the drugs found in the automobile is eunmerated as error by her.
A review of the record shows that the trial court did not “аllow” the witness to testify as to his opinion on anything. Rather, counsel for appellants asked the witness on cross-examination whether or not he had seеn appellant Ms. Bennett put the contraband where he had found it. The only objection to the witness’ answer was that it had not been responsive to the question. The trial court instructed appellants’ counsel to ask his question again, and he then asked a different question. At no point was the trial court ever сalled upon to make a ruling concerning the admissibility of an opinion by the witness as to who was in possession of the drugs found in the car. At no point was the trial сourt ever requested to take corrective measures with regard to the testimony which was offered. “ ‘Enumerations of error which raise questions for the first time on appeal present nothing for decision. [Cits.]’ [Cit.]”
Lane v. State,
4. Appellant Ms. Bennett еnumerates the general grounds. After a thorough review of the evidence produced at trial, we find that a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found appellant Ms. Bennett to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
Jackson v. Virginia,
Judgments affirmed.