In the defendant's trial for multiple counts of child sexual assault the trial court incorrectly overruled his objection that testimony of the SANE who examined the child complainant constituted bolstering of that child's later testimony. Reference to a rule of evidence might save an objection that may otherwise be obscure, but an objection is not defective merely because it does not identify a particular rule. The issues were discussed by both attorneys during the trial and the judge made rulings several times. No aspect of the child's declarations had been impeached prior to the State's questions, and her declarations in the SANE examination were consistent with her prior testimony, if not more detailed and complete. Rivas v. State - PD-1113-07.