concurring specially in Division 3 and dissenting as to Division 1 and the judgment.
Under Georgia’s contemporaneous objection rule, the appellant’s enumeration of error relating to the admission of evidence in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610 (1976) has been waived. Reeves v. State, 241 Ga. 44 (234 SE2d 24) (1978); Sheffield v. State, 235 Ga. 507 (220 SE2d 265) (1975). "It is well settled that an objection to the admission of evidence may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” McAllister v. State, 231 Ga. 368 (202 SE2d 54) (1973). The Georgia contemporaneous objection rule is based upon both court rule (Code Ann. § 24-3362) and case law. Andrews v. State, 118 Ga. 1 (43 SE 852) (1903). The rule is applicable to constitutional questions. E.g., Clenney v. State, 229 Ga. 561, 563 (192 SE2d 907) (1972). The application of such a rule to constitutional issues was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (97 SC 2497, 53 LE2d 594) (1977). That court held that where a state has a contemporaneous objection rule, failure to make timely objection to the introduction of a confession barred federal habeas corpus review absent a showing of cause for noncompliance and some showing of actual prejudice.
I dissent as to Division 1 of the majority opinion and the judgment. In my opinion, the exclusion of the three jurors for cause violated Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (1972). See Griggs v. State, 241 Ga. 317 (245 SE2d 269) (1978); Davis v. Georgia, 429 U. S. 122 (1976); Harris v. Texas, 403 U. S. 947 (1971).