Appellant’s objection at trial to the admission of hearsay statements did not preserve his claim that the Confrontation Clause was violated under Crawford. At his trial for kidnapping, appellant contended that the trial court erred when it permitted, over his objection, Police Sergeant Colegrove to testify that the victim had told him that appellant refused to let the women in the apartment open the door to police officers. He contended that admission of the statements to Colegrove denied him the right to confront and cross-examine an adverse witness. Respondent argued that the issue was waived because appellant never gave as his grounds for his objection that there was a constitutional violation. Appellant argued that one of the grounds for the objection was that he was unable to cross-examine the declarant, thus implying the constitutional ground. The appellate court found that the objection was a hearsay objection, not a Sixth Amendment consideration. Therefore, appellant cannot now argue the trial court denied him his Sixth Amendment right to confront all witnesses as held in Crawford. A Crawford analysis is distinctly different than that of a generalized hearsay problem. Even though the issue was waived by the failure to object, the court addressed the issue on the merits, to forestall an argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to voice the proper ground for objection. The victim’s statements were nontestimonial, and were therefore properly admitted.