objection to preserve error in Iowa

2014The test to determine the sufficiency of an objection to preserve error “is *521 whether the exception taken alerted the trial court to the error which is urged on appeal.” Dutcher v. Lewis, 221 N.W.2d 755, 759 (Iowa 1974).

1986General principles in Iowa involving preservation of error have been stated as: In determining the sufficiency of an objection to preserve error, “the test is whether the exception taken alerted the trial court to the error which is urged on appeal.” Dutcher v. Lewis, 221 N.W.2d 755, 759 (Iowa 1974).

1986The purpose is “to afford the trial judge an opportunity to catch exactly what is in counsel’s mind and thereby determine whether the objection possesses merit to an extent the instruction should be recast.” State v. Baskin, 220 N.W.2d 882, 886 (Iowa 1974).

1985The purpose is “to afford the trial judge an opportunity to catch exactly what is in counsel’s mind and thereby de *738 termine whether the objection possesses merit...” Goetzman, 327 N.W.2d at 745 (quoting State v. Baskin, 220 N.W.2d 882, 886 (Iowa 1974)).

1976The test for determining the sufficiency of an objection to preserve error was stated in State v. Clay, 213 N.W.2d 473, 476-477 (Iowa 1973): “The general rule is that unless the reasons for an objection are obvious one attempting to exclude evidence whether the attempted exclusion is by objection or motion has the duty to indicate the specific grounds to the court so as to alert the judge to the question raised and enable opposing counsel to take proper corrective measures to remedy the defect, if possible.” Error may not ordinarily be predicated on an order overruling an inadequate objection.

1976The test for determining the sufficiency of an objection to preserve error was *231 stated in State v. Clay, 213 N.W.2d 473, 476-477 (Iowa 1973): "The general rule is that unless the reasons for an objection are obvious one attempting to exclude evidence whether the attempted exclusion is by objection or motion has the duty to indicate the specific grounds to the court so as to alert the judge to the question raised and enable opposing counsel to take proper corrective measures to remedy the defect, if possible." Error may not ordinarily be predicated on an order overruling an inadequate objec

2021See State v. Gordon, 921 N.W.2d 19, 24 (Iowa 2018) (requiring an objection to risk assessment tools used in a presentencing report to raise a due process claim on appeal); State v. Guise, 921 N.W.2d 26, 29 (Iowa 2018) (“Guise failed to preserve his due process claim for direct appeal.”).

2021See State v. Gordon, 921 N.W.2d 19, 24 (Iowa 2018) (requiring an objection to risk assessment tools used in a presentencing report to raise a due process claim on appeal); State v. Guise, 921 N.W.2d 26, 29 (Iowa 2018) (“Guise failed to preserve his due process claim for direct appeal.”).

2015“The test to determine the sufficiency of an objection to preserve error is whether the exception taken alerted the trial court to the error which is urged on appeal.” State v. Kennedy, 846 N.W.2d 517, 520-21 (Iowa 2014).

2015We find error was preserved as, given J.C.’s numerous Confrontation Clause objections, the “district court understood the substance of trial counsel’s objection and was able to determine whether the objection had merit.” See id. at 521 .

1985In considering the sufficiency of an objection to preserve error, “the test is whether the exception taken alerted the trial court to the error which is urged on appeal.” Goetzman v. Wichern, 327 N.W.2d 742, 745 (Iowa 1982), quoting Dutcher v. Lewis, 221 N.W.2d 755, 759 (Iowa 1974).

1985The purpose is “to afford the trial judge an opportunity to catch exactly what is in counsel’s mind and thereby de *738 termine whether the objection possesses merit...” Goetzman, 327 N.W.2d at 745 (quoting State v. Baskin, 220 N.W.2d 882, 886 (Iowa 1974)).

1981State v. Taylor, 310 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 1981); State v. Steltzer, 288 N.W.2d 557, 558 (Iowa 1980); State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 761, 767 (Iowa 1978); Reese, 259 N.W.2d at 775 ; State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1975).

1981State v. Taylor, 310 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 1981); State v. Steltzer, 288 N.W.2d 557, 558 (Iowa 1980); State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 761, 767 (Iowa 1978); Reese, 259 N.W.2d at 775 ; State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1975).

1981State v. Taylor, 310 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 1981); State v. Steltzer, 288 N.W.2d 557, 558 (Iowa 1980); State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 761, 767 (Iowa 1978); Reese, 259 N.W.2d at 775 ; State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1975).