any authority to explain what he means by this statement. Therefore, we assume he has found none. State v. Logan, 102 Wn. App. 907, 911 n.1, 10 P.3d 504 (2000) (quoting DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126, 372 P.2d 193 (1962)). 23 CrR 6.15(c) provides, Before instructing the jury, the court shall supply counsel with copies of the proposed numbered instructions .... The court shall afford to counsel an opportunity... to object to the giving of any instructions and the refusal to give a requested instruction----The party objecting shall state the reasons for the objection, specifying the number, paragraph, and particular part of the instruction to be given or refused. 24 RAP 2.5(a)(3); see Trueax v. Ernst Home Ctr., Inc., 124 Wn.2d 334, 341-42, 878 P.2d 1208 (1994)
holding that a party must submit a proposed instruction to preserve an objection for appeal holding refusal to give pretext instruction was error but not prejudicial holding that by failing to object to trial courts refusal to give proposed instruction party did not preserve instructional error for review in accordance with cr 51f holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review holding that appellant failed to preserve error in court reporters failure to make record of trial by failing to object