R. Evid. 103(a) & cmt.; see also State v. Brink, 183 Vt. 603, 949 A.2d 1069, 1071-72 (2008) (citing Vt. R. Evid. 103 cmt.) (“Under the 2004 amendments, a ‘definitive’ ruling on admissibility obviates the need for a renewed objection at trial.”); Spooner v. Town of Topsham, 186 Vt. 527, 973 A.2d 1202, 1204 (2009) (referencing 2004 amendment but concluding that the Town’s objection was not preserved for appeal because there was no definitive pretrial ruling and the Town did not renew its objection at trial). South Dakota’s version of Rule 103(a), codified at South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL) § 19-9-3, was amended in 2006 to add the same language from the amended FRE Rule 103(a). See S.D. Codified Laws § 19-9-3; see also In re Estate of Duebendorfer, 721 N.W.2d 438, 444 n. 4 (S.D.2006) (<HOLDING>). As in the aforementioned states, the HRE is
holding that even where postconviction petitioner reserved the option to file an amended petition in his opening petition simply filing an amended petition is insufficient to request leave to file an amended petition a motion for leave to file an amended petition was required before it was necessary for the district judge to consider the amended petition recognizing that they could be amended anyway holding that guidelines did not become effective until adopted by the legislature on july 1 1984 and those who committed their offenses before the effective date must affirmatively elect to be sentenced under the guidelines recognizing that sdcl  1993 was amended effective july 1 2006 holding that because conduct at issue occurred prior to december 1 1993 amended rule 11 was not applied