the state argues, defendant has not preserved his second assignment of error. We disagree. In making his motion for judgment of acquittal, defendant specifically argued that the state had failed to establish that he had been released pursuant to a release agreement, as the term is defined by ORS 135.230. That reference, coupled with the specific argument supporting his motion in limine, was sufficient to preserve the claim of error for appeal. Not only did defendant, in making his motion for a judgment of acquittal, raise before the trial court the issue that he raises on appeal, he also cited the correct source of statutory authority, and he previously had alerted the court to the specific argument that he makes on appeal. See State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188, 766 P2d 373 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Finally, where we have concluded that the
holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency holding that the most important factor in the preservation hierarchy is whether the relevant issue was raised in the trial court and the least important factor is whether the appellant alerted the trial court to the specific argument raised on appeal recognizing that the third factor permanence is the most important holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal recognizing that the most important factor in determining whether a governmental entity is entitled to eleventh amendment immunity is whether a judgment against it would be paid from the state treasury