on the quantity element. The solicitor clearly understood the argument to relate to quantity, stating “we would argue that [Cain and Parkhurst] are attempting to manufactur[e] methamphetamine and the attempt to manufacture [is] more than, the theoretical yield of more than 10 grams in this case, the maximum theoretical yield is just about 17 grams.” The trial court took the motion to dismiss under advisement. Cain also focused on quantity when he made his motion for a directed verdict. He argued, Your Honor, we’d make a motion for directed verdict. The testimony has been presented that there is some type of something going on in this house, some ingredient in this house that has been identified as a meth lab with some yield. In optimal conditions, maybe, 2d 434, 437 (Ct. App. 2014) (<HOLDING>). After all the evidence had been presented,
holding that error was preserved by running objection because of defendants immediate objection to states specific question in combination with trial courts comments showing that it understood nature of defendants objection holding the issue was preserved when the trial court immediately appeared to understand the objection was a renewal of a previous argument holding an issue was preserved in part because the trial court immediately understood the basis of the objection holding that an issue was not preserved for appellate review because appellants trial objection does not comport with the issue he raised on appeal holding that although the defendant had preserved his objection to the constitutionality of a mental state requirement he had not preserved another constitutional objection