In Reed v. State, 353 Md. 628, 728 A.2d 195 (1999), the Court of Appeals, after extensively reviewing the Maryland appellate decisions on preservation by motion in limine, reiterated that "as to rulings on motions in limine that result in the admission of evidence the rule is that the contemporaneous objection rule ordinarily applies." Id. at 638, 728 A.2d at 200. When the evidence is offered at trial "a contemporaneous objection generally must be made pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-323(a) in order for that issue of admissibility to be preserved for the purpose of appeal." Id., 728 A.2d at 201. Reed v. State, was a prosecution on drug charges. Reed moved to exclude from evidence portions of the statement which he had given to the police in which he had admitted possession and distribution, on a minor scale, of controlled dangerous substances prior to the offenses charged against him. The motion was made pretrial, ruled on favorably by one judge, and later changed by another judge to permit use of the statement. Reed, 353 Md. at 630-31, 728 A.2d at 197. At trial a detective testified, without any objection by Reed, to the contents of the statement, but objection was made when the written statement was introduced as an exhibit. Id. at 631, 728 A.2d at 197. On appeal Reed argued that the contemporaneous objection rule should be relaxed where the ruling on a motion in limine is "definitive." Id. at 640, 728 A.2d at 202. Rejecting the argument, the Court of Appeals pointed out that it ignored Rule 4-323(a) and (c) and the prior Maryland cases. In a rather clear indication that it was a pretrial motion in limine which the Court was considering the Court reasoned that the contemporaneous objection rule promoted "consistency and judicial efficiency," because both the identity of the judge and the relevance of evidence can change between a pretrial ruling and the point at which the proof is offered into evidence at trial. Id. at 641, 728 A.2d at 202.