objection and correct any error in Iowa

2025She contends the stipulation was therefore not a waiver because it was only offered as a tactical decision—a means of mitigating the prejudice that would result from the court’s “erroneous” admissibility ruling. 6 “The preservation of error doctrine is grounded in the idea that a specific objection to the admission of evidence be made known, and the trial court be given an opportunity to pass upon the objection and correct any error.” State v. Brown, 656 N.W.2d 355, 361 (Iowa 2003). “[A]n objection, once made and overruled, need not be asserted repeatedly to the same type of evidence” to prese

2024See State v. Trane, 984 N.W.2d 429 , 434–35 (Iowa 2023) (“We will not consider an evidentiary 3 complaint unless the complaining party made their ‘specific objection’ to the evidence ‘known’ in the district court, and the court had the ‘opportunity to pass upon the objection and correct any error.’” (quoting State v. Brown, 656 N.W.2d 355, 361 (Iowa 2003))).

2025State v. Schmidt, 312 N.W.2d 517, 518 (Iowa 1981).

2023When an 8 evidentiary concern is “not adequately raised by proper specific objection” before the district court, we consider it “waived.” State v. Ware, 338 N.W.2d 707, 712 (Iowa 1983).

2022See Buboltz v. Birusingh, 962 N.W.2d 747 , 757 (Iowa 2021) (“To preserve error on an objection to the admission of evidence at trial, counsel must make known a specific objection to give the trial court an opportunity to rule on the objection and correct any error”); State v. Tangie, 616 N.W.2d 564, 569 (Iowa 2000) (noting that a motion in limine is final and preserves error only when “it is beyond question whether or not the challenged evidence will be admitted during trial”).

2016“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).