In People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, although defendant made "a bare reference to the 'confrontation rule'" in his motion in limine to preclude the introduction of hearsay evidence at trial, the California Supreme Court ruled that his objection was not preserved for review because "that was not enough." Instead, it ruled that "'"questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a specific and timely objection in the trial court on the ground sought to be urged on appeal. "'" (Ibid.) The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred "insofar as its instruction on the concurrence of act and 'specific intent' did not include the crime of murder." (People v. Alvarez, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 220.) The trial court had instructed: " 'In each of the crimes charged in Counts Two, Three and Five of the information, namely, robbery, auto theft and robbery, there must exist a union or joint operation of act or conduct and a certain specific intent in the mind of the perpetrator and unless such specific intent exists the crime to which it relates is not committed.' " (Id. at p. 219.) The Supreme Court determined, however, that reversal was not required since "an instruction on murder substantially covered the concurrence of act and 'specific intent.' " (Id. at p. 220.)