515 N.W.2d at 39 (citing the Rich tripartite test, and noting that since Rich we have adhered to its analysis regarding application of the incidental rule); Ripperger, 514 N.W.2d at 750-51. I think it is apparent that a challenge to the instruction, particularly in a case where the evidence supporting confinement in excess of that incidental to sexual abuse was thin, a challenge to a jury in-, struction as not conforming with Rich and its clear progeny applying the tripartite test was a claim worth raising. See State v. Schoelerman, 315 N.W.2d 67, 72 (Iowa 1982) (finding nothing would have stopped an attorney from raising an issue if the attorney would have consulted the law in other jurisdictions when none existed in Iowa); see also State v. Ross, 845 N.W.2d 692, 698 (Iowa 2014) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778, 785 (Iowa
holding that neither failure to object to an instruction nor an express statement of no objection to an instruction waive plain error review pursuant to rule 3020 holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error holding failure to disclose may constitute supplying false information to support negligent misrepresentation claim where such failure breaches a statutory duty holding that a party must submit a proposed instruction to preserve an objection for appeal recognizing failure to preserve error by objecting to an inaccurate jury instruction breaches an attorneys duty