Cited by

-77, ¶ 23 (App. 2016) (To establish prejudice for fundamental error review, “a defendant must show that, but for the error, a reasonable factfinder could have reached a different result.”).

r whether a trial court’s limitations are reasonable is “whether the defendant has been denied the opportunity of presenting to the trier of fact information which bears either on the issues 6 STATE v. PARKINSON Opinion of the Court in the case or on the credibility of the witness.” ().

¶ 5 n.2 (App. 2016) (declining to consider an argument where the appellant abandoned it in his reply brief).

¶ 36 (App. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 5, n.2 (App. 2016) (declining to consider an argument the appellant abandoned in the reply brief).

-80, ¶ 41 (App. 2016) ().

¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2016) (finding appellant had forfeited an argument that evidence was inadmissible under Rule 702 and as hearsay when his stated grounds for objection at trial were relevance and cumulative evidence).

“[A] specific word is not required to make an objection or to preserve an issue for appeal.” ¶ 27 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).

¶ 30 (2003) (“The purpose of an objection is to permit the trial court to rectify possible error, and to enable the opposition to obviate the objection if possible.” (); ¶ 27 (App. 2016) (use of the word “object,” or any specific word, is not required to make an objection or to preserve an issue for appeal).

¶ 5 n.2 (App. 2016) (declining to consider an argument that the appellant “abandoned” in his reply brief); ¶ 15 (App. 1998) (“Normally, failure to raise a claim at trial waives appellate review of that claim, even if the alleged error is of constitutional dimension.”).

n.2, ¶ 5 (App. 2016) (declining to consider an argument in part because the appellant “abandoned” the “argument in his reply brief”).

¶ 3 (App. 2004) (citation omitted).5 In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion we acknowledge that the United States Constitution guarantees defendants “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” ¶ 36 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 12 (App. 2010), aff’d, (internal quotation omitted)).

relevant, (holding court did not abuse its discretion in precluding cross-examination on an irrelevant issue), and in light of the other evidence admitted at trial, Quiroz was not denied “the opportunity of presenting to the trier of fact information which bears either on the issues in the case or on the credibility of the witness,” ¶ 36 (App. 2016).

His motion and argument were sufficient to present the issue of trial fairness to the trial court, even if he never invoked the words “due process” or “fair trial.” ¶¶ 27-28