responded, ‘Yeah, and you’re right. You’ve reserved that issue for appeal ... if you need it, that’s right. That’s preserved.’ Id. At 1132.... I continue to believe that the record was more than sufficient to preserve the issue of the constitutionality of Mo. Stat. § 562.076 as construed by the Missouri Supreme Court. As I stated in my dissent: [A principal] reason for requiring proper preservation of issues at trial is so that the trial court is made aware of the contested issue and will have the first opportunity to correct an error. See Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 487, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). Here, the objection was raised early in the proceedings, clearly notifying the trial court of the issue. See, e.g., State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 23, 95 S.W. 235, 252 (1906) (<HOLDING>); State v. Flynn, 519 S.W.2d 10, 12 (Mo.1975);
holding that failure to make repeated objections is not ineffective when such objections would not have been sustained holding that a party waived its objections on appeal to an affidavit presented in support of a motion for summary judgment by failing to raise its objections to the trial court holding that the nature or character test set forth in code  192231 applies to both indictments and warrants and that since the amendment at issue in the case did not change the nature or character of the offense charged  the trial court did not err in allowing the trial to proceed on the amended warrant holding that two general objections were insufficient to properly preserve the issue holding that issue is preserved if the objections at the trial were sufficiently specific to notify the trial court at the time of the nature and character of the objections and the reasons for them