for this argument. ¶ 11. The first ground on which defendant claims jury instruction error was the trial court’s decision not to require the jury to choose and unanimously agree upon one of the three possible mental states that can be used as a basis to support a conviction of voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder: intent to kill, intent to do great bodily harm, and wanton disregard of the likelihood of death or great bodily harm. Defendant argues that by failing to require this unanimity, the jury charge violated defendant’s constitutional rights under Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution. It does not appear that defendant raised the constitutional argument at trial, and thus it is waived. See State v. Hinchliffe, 2009 VT 111, ¶ 31, 186 Vt. 487, 987 A.2d 988 (<HOLDING>). Even had proper objection been made, there
recognizing general rule that failure to raise nonjurisdietional issues below precludes appellate consideration of such issues holding that the governments failure to argue harmless error results in a waiver of the argument holding failure to preserve issues below results in waiver even of constitutional issues holding that an applicants failure to include specific issues in his petition for review results in abandonment of any claims of error he might have raised regarding the decisions related to those issues holding failure to object in timely fashion at trial results in waiver of issue for appeal