In Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002), the Court discussed the different classifications of rights as set forth in Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Id. The defendant in Saldano did not object to testimony that concerned his rights under the Equal Protection Clause. Id. The court held that a defendant must object to testimony offered, and the failure to do so "prevents his raising on appeal an Equal Protection Claim." Id. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that rights classified as "waivable only" require objection at trial. Consequently, the only time that a defendant is not required to object in order to preserve error is when the right implicated is one that concerns absolute requirements and prohibitions. Id. The admissibility of evidence does not rise to the level of absolute requirements and prohibitions. Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held "that the failure to object in a timely and specific manner during trial forfeits complaints about the admissibility of evidence." Id. The Court of criminal appeals enumerated the following "fundamental errors": (1) denial of the right to counsel; (2) denial of the right to a jury trial; (3) denial of ten days' preparation before trial for appointed counsel; (4) absence of jurisdiction over the defendant; (5) absence of subject-matter jurisdiction; (6) prosecution under a penal statute that does not comply with the separation of powers section of the state constitution; (7) jury charge errors resulting in egregious harm; (8) holding trials at a location other than the county seat; (9) prosecution under an ex post facto law; (10) comments by a trial judge which taint the presumption of innocence. See id. at 888-89.