trial in order to be preserved for appeal. State v. Ovitt, 2005 VT 74, ¶ 13, 178 Vt. 605, 878 A.2d 314 (mem.). The “issue” the trial court ruled on was not whether a Wade hearing was necessary — and this is natural enough, in light of defendant’s failure to ask for one when invited to — but simply whether the identification was admissible at all. The Wade-hearing issue was not preserved, and defendant does not contend that it was plain error not to hold a Wade hearing. Accordingly, we decline to address whether a Wade hearing was necessary under these circumstances. State v. White, 172 Vt. 493, 499, 782 A.2d 1187, 1192 (2001) (declining to address claim raised for the first time on appeal where party failed to assert plain error); see also Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 349 (1981) (<HOLDING>). III. The excited utterance ¶ 8. Defendant
holding that information was voluntarily provided to the government which mandated the critical mass test holding that the failure of all defendant to join in the petition for removal mandated remand to state court holding that in certain circumstances fraud can be prosecuted under the statute holding that the defendants presence at an in camera conference between the judge defense counsel and a juror regarding the jurors possible bias while not constitutionally mandated was required by rule 43 holding that although wade hearing may be constitutionally mandated under certain circumstances it is not mandated in all cases