Rivas-Membreno presents two allegations of error. First, Rivas-Membreno argues that it was error for the trial court to admit evidence relied upon by Detective Sube in forming his opinion. In response, the State maintains that Rivas-Membreno waived his objection to the evidence because he failed to object when the content of the evidence was admitted prior to and after his initial objection. We agree with the State that Rivas-Membreno’s objection was waived. Secondly, Rivas-Membreno asserts that his sentences for solicitation of witness intimidation, witness, intimidation, and inducing false testimony should merge with the greater offense of obstruction of justice. We reject Rivas-Membreno’s merger argument because the relevant Maryland…show more content… Rivas-Membreno Waived His Objection to the Location of Cell Phone Towers Rivas-Membreno first argues that it was error for the circuit court to admit evidence regarding the location of cell phone towers admitted through the testimony of Detective Sube. The State avers that Rivas-Membreno waived this objection when the substance of the evidence was admitted without challenge the introduction of the same evidence in subsequent points at trial. Accordingly, the State argues that Rivas-Membreno’s challenge to the admission of the location of the cell phone towers is not preserved for appellate review. We agree with the State. At trial, the State called Detective Sube as an expert to testify about cell tower mapping. Detective Sube explained generally how cell phones and cell towers work. Then through Detective Sube’s testimony, the State admitted a disc containing T-Mobile’s cell phone records for Rivas-Membreno’s phone. The cell phone records were accompanied by an affidavit attesting to their authenticity. Rivas-Membreno did not object to the admission of the cell phone records. Accordingly, the cell phone records were admitted into evidence as State’s exhibit 35. The cell phone records contained data relating to the date and time calls were made to or from Rivas-Membreno’s cell phone. The records also contain the Location Area Code (“LAC”), and the Cellular Identification (“CID”), for the cell phone towers that facilitated the calls. Critically, the cell phone…show more content… Accordingly, the cell phone records were sufficient for Detective Sube to complete his analysis, and the second disc merely contained cumulative data. To be sure, the second disc contained a significant amount of data that Detective Sube did not rely on in his analysis. The relevant portions of the second disc; namely, the LACs, CIDs, and tower coordinates; however, had already been admitted into evidence. Accordingly, because “essential contents of that objectionable testimony have already been established and presented to the jury without objection,” we hold that Rivas-Membreno’s attempt to exclude of the locations of the cell towers by objecting to the second disc was untimely Yates v. State, 429 Md. at 120 (emphasis
