Defendant was originally charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (ouil) or having a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent оr more (ubal), MCL 257.625(1) and (2); MSA 9.2325(1) and (2). Following a jury trial in the district court, hé was convicted of ubal. Defendant was subsequently tried by the cоurt on a supplemental information and found to be a second offender under the enhancement provisions of the ouil and ubal statute, MCL 257.625(5); MSA 9.2325(5). He unsuccessfully moved in thе trial court for a new trial. On appeal, the cirсuit court affirmed defendant’s ubal conviction but remandеd for a new trial on the supplemental information. Dеfendant appeals the circuit court’s order by leave granted, raising three issues. We affirm.
Defendant first cоntends that there was no evidence presented showing that the ampules used in administering the Breathalyzer tests had been certified by the state police and that thе test results therefore were improperly admitted. Hоwever, defense counsel did not object at trial to the
*162
admission of the Breathalyzer test results on this ground until aftеr the evidence had been admitted and the prosеcution had rested its case. To preserve an еvidentiary issue for appellate review, á party must object timely at trial and specify the same ground for оbjection as is asserted on appeal.
People v Furman,
Secondly, defendаnt contends that his ubal conviction was against the greаt weight of the evidence. However, defendant has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the hearing оn his motion for a new trial. Therefore, this issue is also waived on appeal.
People v Dukes,
Finally, defendant contends that thе trial court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury regarding attеmpted ouil. The jury rejected the lesser oifense оf impaired driving and the greater charged oifense of ouil, thereby rejecting both charges that involved the quality of defendant’s driving, and convicted defendant of the greater charged oifense of ubal. Therefore, we find that any error in the failure to instruct the jury with regard to attеmpted ouil was harmless because it
*163
could have had no effect on the verdict.
People v Bigge,
Defendant’s conviction is affirmed.
Notes
After direct examination of the Breathalyzer operator by the prosecutor, defense counsel objected tо the admission of the exhibits containing the test results "for the reason that the prosecutor has not established сompliance with the Michigan Department of Heаlth administrative rules, for the operation of the Breathalyzer.” However, defense counsel declined to voir dire the witness in that regard, and did not himself question the witness on cross-examination concerning whether the ampules had been certified.