with one count of stalking for his numerous phone calls to Nall. ¶30 However, Tichenor’s argument raising § 46-11-410, MCA, is being raised for the first time on appeal. It is well settled that this Court will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal and we will not hold a district court in error where the court was never given an opportunity to correct itself. State v. Baker, 2000 MT 307, ¶¶ 29-30, 302 Mont. 408, ¶¶ 29-30, 15 P.3d 379, ¶¶ 29-30; State v. Weeks (1995), 270 Mont. 63, 85, 891 P.2d 477, 490. Moreover, objecting parties must make the basis and grounds for their objection clear to the court. Baker, ¶¶ 29-30; Weeks, 270 Mont. at 85, 891 P.2d at 490. And, the objection must be specific enough to inform the court or the prosecutor of the issue. See Sta .3d 817 (<HOLDING>). ¶32 In opposing Tichenor’s motion to dismiss,
holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault holding in the context of a sexual assault charge that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the first basic and essential element of the offense namely that an act of intercourse involving the victim had occurred and further stating that that fact had to be proved even if the defendant was not disputing that particular element of the offense holding that age factor in sexual assault statute pertains only to sentencing and is not an element of the offense holding that 8 usc  1326b2 is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense holding that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 usc  1326b2 and not a separate criminal offense