Barnes, Presiding Judge. Roland Evan Croyle repeatedly rammed a sport utility vehicle (SUV) into the front door of the Twin Peaks restaurant where he and his ex-wife had once worked. After exiting the SUV, Croyle tossed accelerants throughout the restaurant, then set the building on fire. When Croyle was later asked why he had done those acts, he answered that he associated the place with the breakdown of his marriage. At Croyle’s ensuing criminal trial that spanned 5 days, the jury rejected his defense that he was not guilty by reason of insanity, and found him guilty but mentally ill on each count of the indictment.[1] After merger, Croyle was convicted of 21 counts of aggravated assault[2] and one count each of first degree criminal damage to property[3] and first degree arson.[4] Denied a new trial, Croyle contends in this appeal that the trial court erred by allowing certain expert testimony and by rejecting his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Regarding the latter, Croyle claims that his defense was prejudiced by a stipulation entered with respect to the aggravated assault counts, and by the absence of certain language from the final jury charge. We affirm. At the outset of the State’s case in chief, the prosecutor presented video recordings of the incident that had been captured by several surveillance cameras positioned in and around the premises, as well as the testimony of several law enforcement officers who had responded to the scene, and recordings of statements that Croyle made to law enforcement officers after his arrest. Collectively, this evidence showed that at about 12:45 p.m. on June 26, 2017, a Mitsubishi Montero Sport slammed twice into the front door of the Twin Peaks restaurant. The driver of the SUV, later confirmed as Croyle, was attempting to drive the SUV into the restaurant. The occupants of the restaurant rushed out of the building. After additional, but still unsuccessful attempts to ram the SUV through the front door, Croyle got out of the SUV. He then made multiple trips into the building, transporting from the SUV then tossing about the dining and kitchen areas of the restaurant what was later confirmed to be aerosol cans, two propane tanks, an open cooler filled with fuel, and multiple open 5-gallon buckets of fuel. Croyle ignited a fire both in the kitchen and in the dining area, then briskly returned to the SUV. Meanwhile, a plainclothes law enforcement officer who happened to have been driving about a block away heard the dispatcher’s alert of an “accident into the building” of Twin Peaks and that “someone is trying to set the building on fire.” That officer, who had spent the majority of his 30-year career working in the special operations divisions (dealing with tactical solutions, the bomb squad, the SWAT team, etc.), immediately drove to the scene. As he was arriving, he observed numerous individuals running away from the restaurant. The officer parked his unmarked vehicle in a space most distant from the restaurant. Assessing the situation while walking in a nonchalant manner to the building, the officer noted an SUV with a crashed front end positioned at the front entrance of the restaurant; he then saw a lone man exit that entrance. Because the man seemed to be walking about freely, the officer approached him and asked, “What are you doing?” The man, who the officer identified at trial as Croyle, answered, “I’m blowing the building up.” The officer sought to engage Croyle, “Why are you doing that?” Croyle responded that the restaurant had caused his divorce. When Croyle turned his back, the officer spotted a long, “half-sword” knife tucked through Croyle’s belt loop. The officer attempted to keep their line of communication open without Croyle realizing that he had been approached by police. While they were conversing, an apparent civilian who had taken cover behind one of the vehicles in the parking lot was aiming a firearm at Croyle and shouting commands for Croyle to stop and to freeze; Croyle was intermittently yelling back to the man, “Shoot me. Shoot me.” Croyle took off his shirt, revealing “DNR” starkly written across his chest and stomach. Interpreting the lettering as a “Do Not Resuscitate” message, the officer discerned the situation as potentially perilous for both of them. Upon realizing that Croyle was partly distracted by the gunman crouched behind the car, and noticing that Croyle’s attention had also become partly diverted to an approaching uniformed deputy sheriff who had his firearm drawn, and further determining that Croyle was not perceiving him (the plainclothes officer) to be a threat, the officer seized an opportunity to tackle Croyle to the ground, landing both of them in a large pool of fuel that had collected during Croyle’s transport of the various containers. The uniformed deputy sheriff handcuffed Croyle. Smoke was billowing out the front door, and the officers dragged Croyle to a safe location. The building quickly became engulfed with flames, and explosions were being heard. Concerned that arriving fire crews would attempt to enter the building, the plainclothes officer demanded from Croyle: “What did you put in the building? . . . What about all the people [in there]?” Croyle answered that he had put some aerosol cans in the restaurant; and regarding the people, Croyle insisted, “[T]hey got out.” Croyle was placed in the back seat of the uniformed deputy sheriff’s patrol car and transported first to a hospital (because of the fuel on his skin), and then to jail. The plainclothes officer who had approached Croyle at the scene was asked at trial whether he had been able to hold an intelligent conversation with Croyle on that day; the officer answered, Absolutely. He knew exactly what he was saying and what his mission was. . . . He had a well-organized plan. This was not something that he did at a whim, when he was driving by. . . [I]t was a well-thought-out plan from beginning to end. I think he made mistakes along the way, but . . . it was a plan. It was not a spur-of-the-moment onset. And with us having the conversation, it was just like talking to someone else. I mean, he responded to my questions; why are you doing this? Well, it caused my divorce. The uniformed deputy sheriff who had handcuffed Croyle testified about several statements that Croyle made to him. For instance, the deputy sheriff testified, “He said that he was supposed to die and he was supposed to take two in the chest and one in the head.” The deputy sheriff testified that he understood Croyle as expressing that he had wanted to die by means of police shooting. A responding sheriff’s office investigator testified that when he arrived at the scene, Croyle was still there, but he was unable to speak to Croyle because Croyle had contaminants on him and thus had to be taken to a hospital. The investigator testified that fire crews and other fire department personnel were also there; he began to examine the scene for evidence, which investigation he continued the next day. Numerous photographs taken of the aftermath were shown to the jury. Two days after the incident, the same investigator, along with an ATF special agent, interviewed Croyle at a police station. Croyle stated that he was 45 years old, recently divorced, and living with his parents. He also said that he had two children whom he could not see because of his ex-wife’s mother. Croyle told that he and his ex-wife had once worked at the Twin Peaks, but that he was fired after being wrongly accused of drinking on the job. Croyle expressed being depressed about his life. He stated that he had been prescribed medications for his depression; that he had been participating in group counseling; that he sometimes could not remember things (that other individuals would tell him he had done); and that he found it “hard to think some days.” When asked what was going on at about 12:35 on the afternoon in question, however, Croyle readily answered that he had intended to catch on fire, sit in a booth, stab himself in the chest with the knife he had secured “in [his] back,” then die. Croyle further revealed that he had planned for the burning building to serve as his funeral pyre. When asked why he had gone to Twin Peaks to kill himself, he explained that the restaurant had been the place where he had lost his respect, where his wife had lost respect for him, where he had realized that he had failed her, where “it hurt me the most,” and where he thus needed to die. Croyle recounted that in saying his goodbyes, he had visited his children and given them his wisdom teeth because he had nothing else to give. Croyle further recounted that he had purchased gasoline from a gas station; that he had tried to drive the SUV into the restaurant so that he “could get the gasoline and stuff out easier”; that he had thrown propane tanks and gas cans into the building to fuel the fire; that he had “wanted the pain of being worthless to stop”; and that when he went back outside the restaurant to retrieve the last container of gas from the SUV, he was confronted by two men. A recording of Croyle’s police interview was played for the jury. Next, the State began presenting the accounts of various individuals who had been inside the restaurant when Croyle slammed the SUV into the front door. One such occupant (and an alleged aggravated assault victim), testified that he was eating lunch with his son-in-law when he heard a “real loud” crash “like metal and glass breaking.” He immediately stood up and looked in the direction of the sound, and saw an SUV protruding through the restaurant’s front door. He recalled, “[A]t first, . . . I wasn’t sure if it was an accident, but when he backed up and hit it again, that’s when everybody — the waitress escorted everybody out the back.” This trial witness described that he and other occupants walked around the side of the building and back to the front to see what was going on. From his vantage point, he testified, he observed a man grabbing from an SUV “five-gallon buckets of gas and a cooler — well I can’t say gas — liquid and a cooler with liquid in it and then . . . I seen those propane tanks come out, I told [the individuals who were hiding behind my vehicle] to move. We’ve got to leave.” The trial witness testified that he and his son-in-law rushed into his vehicle, then drove away because “I wasn’t sure how bad . . . [the] explosion was going to be, so I didn’t want to be in that area.” (Defense counsel asked no questions of that trial witness.) The State proceeded by calling to the stand one of the restaurant’s cooks who had been working in the kitchen when he heard a loud boom.[5] Initially, the cook thought perhaps a keg had fallen over, but when numerous individuals ran through the kitchen and out the back door, he joined them. From across the street, he observed Croyle — with whom the cook had once worked at that restaurant — trying, about three of four times, to “get the [SUV] into the front of the building.” The cook testified, “I guess he realized he couldn’t get it in. Got out of the vehicle and started going in and out of the building bringing things into the building. Kind of like propane tanks and some kind of liquid.” (Defense counsel did not ask this trial witness any questions.) The State moved on to another restaurant patron (and a second alleged aggravated assault victim). He recounted that he, his wife, and their daughter had just paid for their lunch when they heard a crash toward the front of the restaurant. He testified, “[T]hen we heard one of the waitresses say, here he comes again, and we all turned around and started heading toward the rear of the building. And then we heard another crash.” He described the exodus at trial as “[j]ust a bunch of people trying to get out of the building” — rushing to the back door, then funneling out into the back parking lot. Although this restaurant patron had tried to reach his vehicle, a law enforcement officer had arrived on the scene and was blocking his path. After walking to the parking lot next door, the patron saw a man grabbing items from an SUV and taking them inside the restaurant. Shortly thereafter, as the patron described at trial, he saw “lots of fire” and could feel the heat. The patron recalled feeling “shook up.” (Defense counsel asked no questions of this trial witness.) The State then called to the stand the wife of the previous trial witness (and a third alleged aggravated assault victim). She likewise recounted that about the time they were paying for their lunch, they heard a commotion at the front of the restaurant, and then heard the check-in hostess exclaim that “he’s going to ram again.” At that point, she (the trial witness) and her family members rushed out the back door. And from her vantage point outside, she observed a person transporting buckets of “sloshing” liquid into the front entrance of the restaurant. Shortly thereafter, she saw fire coming from the restaurant. Toward the end of her direct testimony, she was asked how she had felt during the episode. She replied that after the first “sound of the thing,” she was concerned that someone had been hurt; but that after the “second time,” she felt “panicky” and “real, sort of, terrified.” (Defense counsel asked no questions of this trial witness.) The State proceeded by calling to the stand one of the restaurant’s server (and a fourth alleged aggravated assault victim). She recounted that she was in the kitchen when she heard a crash. She began walking toward the area of that sound, but was turned around by a manager who instructed her to evacuate the restaurant because someone had driven a vehicle into the building. Terrified for her safety, the server exited the back of the building and ran to a nearby business. From there, she observed in the Twin Peaks parking lot a man carrying buckets from an SUV into the building. Shortly thereafter, she observed the building on fire. (Defense counsel asked no questions of this witness.) At this point in the trial, the court called a lunch recess. Outside the presence of the jury, the judge asked the lawyers to consider whether any stipulation(s) would be appropriate to pare down the case. When the judge, the lawyers, and Croyle returned to the courtroom after lunch, the judge revisited the possibility of any stipulation(s), commenting on the seemingly repetitious testimony being presented by the State and the lack of any cross-examination thereon by the defense. After an additional recess, the lawyers reported to the judge that they had agreed to stipulate to certain matters, and the following occurred: [THE PROSECUTOR]: . . . [T]his is a stipulation for trial strategy reasons on both sides, from the State’s perspective to avoid calling out-of-town witnesses and to avoid the continual presentation of witnesses that will say the same thing, . . . and I’d just like [defense counsel] to acknowledge that this was . . . something based on her trial strategy. THE COURT: Do you agree? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes. . . . THE COURT: . . . And so you’ve had a chance to talk about this with your client? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes. . . . [THE PROSECUTOR]: And Your Honor, this would make my going forward today, I can send several witnesses, essentially, home, and to pare it down substantially to, I believe, just addressing four witnesses and among them brief points that are not covered by the stipulation. When the jurors were summoned back into the courtroom, the trial court announced to them that the State and the defense had reached a number of stipulations, including one that would establish that the individuals named in the indictment “were present at the restaurant when allegedly all of these things happened.” Relevant in this appeal is the stipulation that pertained to the aggravated assault counts. As the trial court apprised the jurors, the State and defense had agreed to stipulate: [O]n June 26th, 2017, the Defendant did make an assault upon — and by the time we get through, I will tell you, I will list every victim in Counts 3 through 23 of the indictment. But assume that I have inserted every single name in there. They are agreeing to all of the — those names, by driving a Mitsubishi — a Mitsubishi Montero into Twin Peaks while occupied by each of those victims. As to all of these offenses, but specifically as to this; Defense Counsel is reserving the defenses — defenses of insanity, mental illness and intellectual disability, which must be ultimately decided by you. Continuing with the State’s case-in-chief, the prosecutor called witnesses to testify primarily about events that had preceded the incident. For instance, the State called to the stand the individual who had worked at the restaurant as a busser bar back. He had trained Croyle on his job, which was also to work as a busser bar back. After eliciting that introductory background, the prosecutor swiftly honed the direct examination “really to the one issue present; sir, when you were working with Mr. Croyle, did he ever make a statement to you that he should blow the place up or anything like that?” The witness answered, “Yes, he did. He did.” Another witness called by the State had worked in a supervisory capacity at Twin Peaks, and had played a role in firing Croyle. He recounted that after receiving a report that Croyle was drinking beer behind the bar while on duty, he (the supervisor) and another manger summoned Croyle into an office. Croyle admitted that the beverage he had consumed behind the bar was beer, but claimed that he had brought the beverage into the restaurant. Croyle was fired on the spot, as bringing outside food or beverage into the building was a rule violation. Croyle began walking away, but then ran back to the supervisor — screaming that the supervisor would pay for firing him. This trial witness testified that he had been at the restaurant on the day Croyle started the fire. The State called Croyle’s former wife who was the mother of his children. She testified that during their 16-year marriage, Croyle’s mental state appeared to become increasingly unstable. She decided to leave him because he had become very abusive. In August 2016, she moved out of their residence and filed for a divorce. She had helped Croyle get his job at Twin Peaks, and in September 2016, Coyle was fired. Yet, he continued to show up at the restaurant to see her when she was working. He also was texting her “[a]ll day long,” so she changed her number. In November 2016, she stopped working at Twin Peaks. Their divorce became final the following month. And thereafter, Croyle began receiving counseling. Croyle’s ex-wife further identified the date of the incident, June 26, 2017, as her birthday. The State called to the stand the mother of Croyle’s ex-wife. She recounted that on the morning of June 26, 2017, Croyle came to her home where his two children were living. She testified that Croyle went into his 15-year-old daughter’s room and that she heard him say to her, “I want to give you something of mine.” The witness testified that Croyle then went into his 11-year-old son’s room. The boy was frightened, and ran out the back door and into a nearby wooded area. Croyle’s former mother-in-law reminded Croyle that he was not allowed to be there and told him to leave; Croyle lunged toward her with a knife; she leaned back, and the knife struck the wall. Croyle’s former mother-in-law told Croyle’s daughter to call the police; as the daughter was speaking with dispatch, Croyle looked back at his daughter, then ran to his vehicle and sped away. When a law enforcement officer responded to her residence, Croyle’s former mother-in-law reported to the officer, among other things, that she had overheard Croyle saying to his children that he was going to commit suicide that day; that he had given one of his wisdom teeth to each of his children; and that while at her home, he had threatened to cut off his ring finger. The State also included in its case-in-chief testimony of a lieutenant at the fire department who had been assigned to investigate the fire. He had discovered a surveillance video at a gas station a few miles from Twin Peaks, which recording showed Croyle purchasing fuel at about 12:22 p.m. on June 26, 2017 (about 20 minutes before Croyle arrived at the restaurant). This recording was played for the jury. Croyle elected not to take the stand, but called several witnesses. A counselor at a short term inpatient facility, who had seen Croyle in individual and group therapy sessions between February and May 2017, testified that Croyle had expressed feeling useless because he had not yet gotten another job; that he refused to take personal responsibility for his situation; that he blamed others for his unemployment; that he had suggested that his medications were not working properly; and that because Croyle was having some suicidal ideations, she had recommended that Croyle be admitted into the facility’s crisis stabilization unit.[6] Further, the counselor testified that Croyle was able to hold an intelligent conversation; that he used deflection to avoid answering questions; and that he had never mentioned that he was hallucinating or experiencing blackouts or any “disassociation.” A peer specialist at the same facility, who had met with Croyle in individual and group settings in May 2017, testified that Croyle was very depressed; that he was having no contact with his children because of his ex-wife and her mother; that he had no income; that the medications that he had been taking for two months had not helped him; and that he had expressed wanting his emotional, mental, and physical pain to stop. The peer specialist recalled that Croyle had mentioned facing two upcoming tough days (one of which was his ex-wife’s birthday); and that if he could get through those two days, he would be okay. The peer specialist testified that she had last seen Croyle at a group session on the day of the incident, and that Croyle mentioned to her that it was his ex-wife’s birthday. At that session, Croyle rated his feelings, using a scale of one to ten, at zero. And when that session ended, Croyle indicated to the peer specialist that he would not be returning. Croyle’s treating psychiatrist was qualified at trial to testify as an expert. The psychiatrist had met with Croyle on May 11, 2017 and May 25, 2017. Croyle complained of experiencing depression, crying spells, physical pain, nightmares, high levels of stress, being upset because of unemployment, and the failure of his prescribed medicines — an anti-depressant drug and a pain medication — to provide any relief. The psychiatrist testified, “The diagnosis that we had for [Croyle] was the bipolar disorder type II, generalized anxiety disorder and that some of the emotional diagnosis indicative of some of his emotional problems could have contributed to the increased severity of the pain.” The psychiatrist had ascertained that Croyle was having chronic suicidal thoughts. The psychiatrist increased the dosage on the pain medication, and added lithium for mood stability. On cross-examination, the psychiatrist testified that during their two sessions, Croyle was capable of intelligently answering his questions, and that Croyle never described experiencing hallucinations, “disassociating,” blacking out, or otherwise losing time segments. Croyle also called his parents to the stand. His mother recounted that at about 9:00 a.m. on the date of the incident, Croyle came to her home; that he was crying and seemed overwhelmed; and that during that time, he was still grieving because of his divorce. He left her home to attend a scheduled group therapy session, but returned at about 11:00 a.m., telling her that there were no answers for him. Croyle left his mother’s house again, but came back at about noon; during that brief visit, he handed her his house keys and wallet, and told her that she could have the small amount of money left on his debit card; he said that he could not stand the pain anymore and was finished. As he was walking toward a Mitsubishi SUV, Croyle was crying and saying that he was of no use even to his own children. Croyle’s father (who was not at home when Croyle made his visits on June 26, 2017) testified that Croyle was in “extreme distress and despair” because he had put about 15 years into a marriage and had believed everything was okay. Further, Croyle’s father revealed that he himself had suffered from mental health conditions, which he identified as “borderline paranoid schizophrenic and manic depressant.” Croyle’s father also testified that he had tried committing suicide when he was 18 or 19 years old, and had undergone treatment for about a year. Croyle’s father testified that his own father was schizophrenic, did not receive any treatment, and had committed suicide. In rebuttal, the State called as an expert a licensed psychologist who had been conducting forensic mental health evaluations since 2001. About a year after the incident, the psychologist began evaluating Croyle, which included interviewing Croyle in person on three occasions; reviewing Croyle’s heath (including mental) records; and examining the discovery materials in the instant case such as the recordings captured by Twin Peaks’ surveillance cameras and the recording of Croyle’s police statement. The psychologist also performed psychological testing to screen whether Croyle was feigning psychopatholgy (i.e., “faking mental-health symptoms”). When asked whether he had made any diagnostic conclusion regarding Croyle, the psychologist answered, “I thought at the time of the offenses, he had a major depression disorder and I also believed he was suffering and experiencing an alcohol-use disorder.” The psychologist testified, “Croyle, himself, informed me that he was routinely drinking up to a 12-pack of beer, as well as some vodka, fairly regularly.” The psychologist further testified that depression disorders could be triggered by the loss of a significant relationship, and cited that Croyle had recently gone through a divorce and had lost regular contact with his children. The psychologist opined that the screening test employed had shown, however, that Croyle “was actively engaging in faking psycholopathology” during their interviews. As the psychologist went on to testify, During my interviews with Mr. Croyle, specifically regarding the events and his mental health at the time of the offense, he came up with a variety of factors that he said he was experiencing that were not anything that you would see from anyone who’s having regular and real mental-health symptoms. . . . [F]or example, he basically indicated that at some point he had no real memory of doing anything or causing any offense. He said . . . everything was kind of this vague, sort of state, where he was like in a dreamlike state, where he’s just kind of going through the motions. He’s talking about all these command hallucinations he was having. Things that he was being told to do things like to go to the restaurant. When you put it altogether and you looked at the symptoms that he endorsed, they just did not make sense. . . . At some point he said he basically arrived at the restaurant and he didn’t even realize he was there until he was on the ground being held for the police. And again, that’s very atypical to go through and more importantly it wasn’t consistent with other statements he’d made to me throughout the three days of interviewing that I did with him. As the psychologist elaborated, [O]ne of the statements that he made that I thought was really interesting was that despite the fact that he had no recollection of the actual events leading up to the fire and everything else, he was able to specifically tell me every alleged symptom that he was having at that exact time. Those two things, quite frankly, just did not go very well together. If someone was having the sort of vague states as he was explaining, . . . why could you just remember the symptoms but never remember your actual actions. Those two things just do not go together. Moreover, the psychologist testified, Croyle’s background records had included no reference that Croyle had been experiencing a loss of time, and it was only when he (the psychologist) asked Croyle about his mental health at the time of the incident did “this vagueness . . . come up.” The psychologist testified that he had discerned several indicators during his interviews with Croyle that Croyle had more knowledge of what had occurred than what he was trying to suggest during his interviews. By way of example, the psychologist cited that Croyle had explained to him that he faulted Twin Peaks for his marital break up; that he was upset about what he perceived the restaurant had done to him; and that he had selected his wife’s birthday to do what he did at the restaurant. The psychologist testified that he had discerned during his personal interviews with Croyle that, on the day in question, Croyle had not been some disorganized person experiencing the symptoms that he was reporting during the interviews; instead, Croyle’s actions at the restaurant demonstrated a person who had already made plans and was simply executing them. By way of example, the psychologist cited the amount of materials that Croyle had brought with him to set the building on fire; and the manner in which he moved about the restaurant while starting the fire — not in some haphazard or aggressive manner, but in a careful way so as not to harm himself. Referring to the restaurant’s surveillance recordings, the psychologist pointed out, “[Croyle] tried several times before it actually went on fire and as soon as it — he saw that it was on fire, he immediately exited the building.” Toward the end of direct examination, the psychologist testified, I think it was clear that Mr. Croyle was very angry about the divorce, about the loss of the children, about the loss of his job. . . . I’m not trying to minimize the fact that Mr. Croyle was depressed. I believe he was depressed. . . . But that wasn’t really the question. The question is . . . did his symptoms interfere with his ability to know right from wrong. When asked as a follow-up question whether it was “his expert opinion . . . that on the day, during the time in question, that [Croyle] appreciated that his actions would have consequences,” the psychologist replied, “Yes, my impression that on June 26, 2017, he had the ability to differentiate — know right from wrong, at the time of the offense. That is my opinion.” 1. Croyle contends that the trial court erred by allowing the psychologist to testify that he knew the difference between right and wrong at the time the crimes were being committed. Croyle argues that such testimony violated OCGA § 24-7-704 (b),[7] because it opined on the ultimate issue. Croyle points out that the testimony was harmful, given the stipulation, and given his defense of insanity. In Georgia, a defendant is presumed to be sane. To overcome this presumption, a defendant wishing to assert an insanity defense has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time the crime was committed. This affirmative defense of insanity may be established by showing that, at the time of the act constituting the crime, the defendant . . . did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act[.] (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Jackson v. State, 301 Ga. 878, 881 (3) (804 SE2d 357) (2017).[8] The trial transcript shows that when the expert psychologist gave the opinion now flagged by Croyle, defense counsel neither objected thereto, nor asked for any remedial relief. Notwithstanding, Croyle claims on appeal that “[b]ecause this is a preserved evidentiary issue, the test ‘is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.’ Kirby v. State, 304 Ga. 472, 478 [(3) (c) (819 SE2d 468) (2018) (discussing harmless error under OCGA § 241103 (a))].” Croyle’s claim of a “preserved evidentiary issue” is premised on the trial court’s pretrial ruling upon a motion in limine as to the admissibility of expert testimony,
