We, therefore, reject an invariable requirement that an objection that is the subject of an unsuccessful motion
in limine be renewed at trial. We adopt the approach of
Sheehy and
American Home. Accordingly, we hold that where the substance of the objection has been thoroughly explored during the hearing on the motion
in limine, and the trial court's ruling permitting introduction of evidence was explicit and definitive, no further action is required to preserve for appeal the issue of admissibility of that evidence. In applying this approach, we find that the Palmerins have preserved their objection for appeal. The substance of the objection to the admission of the guilty pleas was thoroughly explored during the hearing on the motion
in limine, and the trial judge's ruling was explicit and definitive. There was no hint that the ruling might be subject to reconsideration. Perhaps most important, there was nothing in the manner or context in which the guilty pleas were introduced at trial that was unforeseen or that cast any doubt on the applicability of the trial court's
in limine ruling. Accordingly, we permit the Palmerins to raise on appeal their objections to introduction of the guilty pleas.